Standing Committee A

[Mr. Alan Hurst in the Chair]

Planning and Compulsory Purchase (Re-committed) Bill

New clause 1 - Planning permission for high hedges

'After section 57 (Planning permission required for development) of the principal Act there is inserted the following section— 
 ''57A Planning permission for high hedges. 
 (1) Planning permission is required for high hedges. 
 (2) In this section 'high hedge' means so much of a barrier to light for, or access to, residential property as— 
 (a) is formed wholly or predominately by a line of two or more evergreens. 
 (b) rises to a height of more than two metres above ground level. 
 (3) In this section 'evergreen' means an evergreen tree or shrub or a semievergreen tree or shrub. 
 (4) The provisions of this section shall not apply to any high hedge existing on the date on which it comes into force.''.'.—[Mr. Andrew Turner.]
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Question proposed [this day], That the clause be read a Second time. 
 Question again proposed.

Yvette Cooper: As I was saying this morning, we have considered whether it is possible to address the issue of high hedges in a different way through the Bill. However, a series of difficulties—many of them similar—arise in the new clause, and they are worth talking through.
 The new clause would treat the problem of high hedges and disputes between neighbours as a planning issue, whereas it is, in fact, a dispute between neighbours that is not being resolved. The first problem with new clause 1 is that it is not retrospective and so, as the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) honestly recognised, cannot resolve the problem for the many people who have horrible high hedges blocking out their light and suffocating their houses. That means that the genuine problems of huge numbers of people across the country would not be resolved by the new clause. Moreover, it would be difficult for them to resolve their problems through a planning approach, given that it is the nature of planning permission that it is applied for in advance. 
 There is also a slight difficulty in subsection (4). There is the question of how one would prove at what point a growing tree or hedge passed the 2 m point, and the issue of whether one could argue that a tree that was 1 m 90 cm before the Bill came into force would need planning permission, but that one that was 2 m 10 cm would not, because of the way that the 
 clause was drafted. The new clause would be slightly difficult to enforce and interpret. 
 Another aspect that would be difficult was alluded to by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown). There are many cases in which a hedge more than 2 m high is not a problem. It may not lie along the boundary between two neighbours; it may be a long way from a house; two neighbours may strongly want a high barrier between them; or the hedge may block out an unsightly view at the end of the garden. There may be no need for anyone to intervene in the growth of a high hedge. Putting additional burdens on the planning process when many cases would not need to be covered seems an inappropriate way of trying to solve a genuine problem. 
 We are not dealing with a planning problem. The hon. Member for Isle of Wight said that some would argue that it is right that the measures should not be retrospective. The planting of the leylandii or hedge may be seen as a retrospective act, but the dispute is what remains. The problem is that there is an incredibly high hedge between two neighbours that is making a misery of one party's life, while the other is not responding to resolve the issue. They have an ongoing dispute. The issue is not one of passing legislation to cover acts that took place in the past, which is what it would be if the matter was regarded as a planning issue. The issue is about how we resolve the dispute between two neighbours, and that is a current and ongoing problem. We should have legislation that allows us to respond to that fact.

Matthew Green: The Minister will recall that I intervened on the hon. Member for Cotswold earlier to mention that, in my constituency, there is a green lane between a high hedge and a property whose owners no longer get light through their windows. We need to be careful; the problem is not always the neighbours, but we keep talking as if it is a matter of dispute between neighbours. In fact, it is a dispute between two parties who may or may not be neighbours.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point, although obviously the most passionate stories are often those where the hedges are growing close to people's kitchens, and where that is having an immediate impact on people's lives and their enjoyment. He is right that the approach taken in the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Pound) was to ensure that his legislation could deal with a range of circumstances.
 We have examined the issue addressed in new clause 1 in considerable detail, and we were keen to do something about it in this Bill, if an appropriate way could be found. However, it has proved too difficult. New clause 1 is the wrong approach, but we shall continue to consider the matter. 
 The hon. Member for Isle of Wight referred to the remarks of my noble Friend Lord Bassam on the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. We are considering this issue very seriously. The term ''antisocial behaviour'' is an appropriate way to describe the problem that we are talking about. This is about neighbours being a nuisance to one another, and it can be far more 
 destructive and more of a harassment to people's lives than a neighbour playing loud music or a teenager who puts graffiti on the fence opposite a house. Antisocial behaviour is not just about young people on low-income estates, but about the middle-aged middle Englander who will not lop the leylandii and leaves his poor neighbour to suffer as a result. 
 We are sympathetic to the points that have been raised about the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, and we are examining the issue closely. As we have maintained throughout, we are keen to get legislation on to the statute book. We will respond to the House of Lords on the Anti-social Behaviour Bill very shortly—within the next few days. There will be further opportunity during the planning Bill, perhaps on Report after the Queen's Speech, for hon. Members to have further discussions if they are not happy with the way in which the Government have responded to the House of Lords. However, given the difficulties of approaching this issue from a planning point of view and our strong interest in considering further the antisocial behaviour element and other possibilities for taking action as rapidly as possible, I ask the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to withdraw his new clause.

Andrew Turner: First, I am grateful to all hon. Members on this side of the Committee for the support that they have given to the principle of my new clause. Secondly, I am grateful to the Minister for her thoughtful and reasonable response to it. We have more promises on record than we had before about the timing of the Government's response to the issue of this serious nuisance. The Minister has said that she is keen to get legislation, and that she will respond to the House of Lords on the Anti-social Behaviour Bill shortly. She expects that, if we are not satisfied, we will have the opportunity to reconsider the matter on Report. I am grateful for that.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Sir Sydney Chapman) was helpful in describing how evergreens grow. His comparison of rights of way and rights to light was singularly appropriate. The hon. Member for Ludlow (Matthew Green) said that all three parties appear to have the same objective—I am sure that that is true also of Cross Benchers in the other place. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold came up with so many criticisms that he was almost drafting a new Bill rather than responding to the new clause. That is his prerogative. It is clear that he is preparing himself to be on the Government Front Bench, responding to new clauses from the Opposition Members, and I am sure that he will fulfil that role very well when he gets the chance to do so after the next general election. 
 My hon. Friend raised some issues that I would have regarded as carping if they had been raised by a less generous Minister—so to speak. However, my hon. Friend is not less generous than the Minister, so I will not describe his comments as carping. He came up with the sorts of criticisms that Ministers sometimes come up with about how the new clause fails on a 
 number of technicalities, but in my view it is the Opposition's job to table new clauses and it is the Minister's job to tidy them up if we do not get them absolutely right. I offer that bit of career development advice to my hon. Friend, should he find himself on the Front Bench in the future.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I offer a piece of advice to my hon. Friend, by telling a little anecdote that I am sure the Committee will enjoy? I was talking to a strong supporter of our leader yesterday, when a Labour Member of Parliament came up to us and said, ''I see that you two are plotting.'' I said, ''There is a big plot: it is to get rid of the Labour party. The problem is that some of our people have lost the plot.''

Andrew Turner: I do not want to go too far down that road, not least because I have to speak again in a few moments and I hope to get as generous a reception as I have received so far. I am grateful to the Minister for her promises: we will examine the fruits of them on Report.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: My hon. Friend has done the Committee—and everyone involved in the 10,000 problems outstanding—a huge service. It was necessary to debate this matter this afternoon. I congratulate him on the ingenuity of his new clause: it is short and simple—it fulfils all the criteria that I have been talking about in this Committee.
 This problem must be addressed—the Government need to deal with it as soon as possible. I hear what the Minister has said, but I wish to press her a little further. The short title of the Bill states that its aim is to 
''Make provision relating to spatial development and town and country planning''.
 Therefore, there is no doubt that the Government could include this issue if they wished to do so. There was a slight lacuna in the Minister's reply, when she said that if hon. Members are not satisfied with her reply they can raise the matter at a subsequent stage. I am sure that my party and the Liberal Democrats will closely examine how it can subsequently be raised. 
 I wish to press the Minister on this matter, because either the Government are determined to do something about it or they are not. The Minister says that it is not a planning issue. However, at the end of the day, local authorities will have to be involved: I chose my words carefully, in my criticism of my hon. Friend's amendment. There are 10,000 disputes, and there must be some mechanism of resolving them. It may not be to do with planning, but I am sure that it is to do with local authorities, so they must be given the necessary power. 
 The Minister says that the matter is not within the scope of this Bill: that might indicate that the Government are considering other possible routes, and that she is being a bit coy about them this afternoon. I have no doubt that this issue will not go away: I hope that the Minister can give a slightly stronger hint that the Government are determined to legislate in this area in one way or another, because the situation is unsatisfactory at the moment. As things stand, the Opposition are determined to press the 
 Government, because we believe that there needs to be legislation in this area.

Yvette Cooper: I am happy to respond to the further remarks of the hon. Member for Cotswold. He seems to have changed his position a little since lunch-time.

Matthew Green: A good lunch.

Yvette Cooper: Clearly, he has had a good lunch.
 The hon. Member for Cotswold has switched from carping to congratulating the hon. Member for Isle of Wight—I use that word cautiously, because it came from his hon. Friend, not from me. 
 The hon. Gentleman spent some time this morning speaking about the difficulties of treating this as a planning issue, and the consequences for planning departments of having to deal with many cases that do not need planning permission. However, this afternoon he seems to be saying that this is a planning matter and could be dealt with. 
 I should like to repeat the points that I made as clearly as possible, given parliamentary procedures. We have considered in detail whether we could do certain things through the planning Bill. We have concluded that that is not possible, without trying to do things differently. To treat this as a planning matter, rather than one of disputes resolution or antisocial behaviour, would cause considerable problems and would not be the ideal solution.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: May I press the Under-Secretary a little further? We are getting to some common ground. A serious conciliation issue needs to be addressed. Can we take it from what the Under-Secretary says that she believes that there is a need for legislation on this issue as soon as possible? Whatever route we take, can she assure us that the Government are intending to legislate as soon as possible?

Yvette Cooper: I have said many times that the Government strongly support legislation on that issue. As I said at the beginning, we regret that the private Member's Bill did not get through. We have been seeking different ways to get the legislation on the statute book at the earliest opportunity.
 As I spent some time saying earlier, we are considering very, very seriously whether it is possible to deal with this issue in the Anti-social Behaviour Bill, as my noble Friend Lord Bassam said. We have given as many hints as possible about the routes we are exploring and we have mentioned the timetable within which we have to respond formally and publicly to the House of Lords on that Bill. As I have said, the House will have plenty of opportunity to return to the matter on Report—if the Committee chooses—after we have responded to the House of Lords on the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill and after the Queen's Speech.

Sydney Chapman: I understand the logic of what the Under-Secretary is saying. She is coming to the conclusion that the correct place for measures to deal with the problem is probably not a planning Bill. There is a possibility that such a provision might be made in the Anti-Social Behaviour Bill.
 If that Bill is found not to be the route, for any reason, we would enter a new Session of Parliament, at which time the Under-Secretary could argue with perfect sincerity that the Government were hoping to bring forward legislation, but that it is not a priority in that Parliament. Perhaps she could respond to my earlier point. Could she give a commitment that the Government would give every possible help to a private Member who chose to bring the measure before the House and who was fortunate in the private Members' ballot at the beginning of the Session?

Yvette Cooper: We have already done that. We gave considerable help to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Ealing, North and supported his Bill through the House. We have to recognise that, given the persistent opposition of a small number of hon. Members, for whatever reason, the private Member's Bill route is difficult. Nevertheless, I give the hon. Member for Chipping Barnet an undertaking that should it not be possible to resolve the matter through any timetable, or other vehicle, we would continue to support any private Member's Bill that came forward, just as we have done with the one introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North.
 There will be further opportunity on Report for hon. Members to return to the matter if they wish to do so. I urge the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to withdraw the new clause.

Andrew Turner: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 2 - Planning permission for subdivision of agricultural holdings for purpose of sale

No. NC2, to move the following Clause:— 
 'After section 57 of the principal Act (planning permission required for development) there is inserted the following section— 
 ''57A Planning permission for subdivision of agricultural holdings for purposes of sale 
 (1) Planning permission is required for— 
 (a) the subdivision of an agricultural holding for the purpose of sale; and 
 (b) the sale of an agricultural holding which has been subdivided since the appointed date other than for the purpose of sale. 
 (2) In this section— 
 (a) 'subdivision' means land divided into one or more units of less than one hectare, and 'subdivided' shall be interpreted accordingly; 
 (b) 'agricultural holding' has the same meaning as in the Agricultural Holdings Act 1986; and 
 (c) 'the appointed date' means 1st July 1993.''.'.—[Mr. Andrew Turner.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Turner: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 This new clause is about the subdivision of agricultural holdings for the purpose of sale. In preparing my remarks, I discovered that this activity has taken place in a number of constituencies, not least your own, Mr. Hurst. 
 The matter came to my attention when the Isle of Wight County Press reported that the Isle of Wight county wants legislation to control companies buying parcels of land, subdividing it, then selling plots that have no hope of getting planning permission. The report referred to a particular company that I shall come to later. Councillor Barry Abraham, councillor for Wootton, told the County Press: 
''What galls me is people buying land and selling off parcels.''
 He is talking about a farmer. The councillor goes on: 
''I don't know if there is anything we can do through the LGA about this practice of people buying land on its 'hope value'.''
 I then met representatives of the Isle of Wight branch of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, including Ted Peach who is the treasurer. They drew my attention to a practice that was going on in Alverstone and Shorwell in my constituency. At Alverstone, 10 acres in the east Yar flood plain were split into 27 plots ranging in size from 0.15 to 0.73 acres and advertised on the internet as ''Sandown pasture/woods/streams''. The site is one of importance for nature conservation and is within an area of outstanding natural beauty; it borders a main river called Scotchells brook and Alverstone Mead local nature reserve. It is a natural relict fen wetland with peat-based soil and an expanding reed bed with typical fauna, including water voles. 
 I was told that a caravan is already installed on one plot without planning permission. It is positioned within 1 m of the brook bank despite there being no services such as sewage disposal points, mains water supply or rubbish disposal. A public water supply intake is situated in the main river Yar, about 200 m away. Wetlands are one of three priority habitats in the Isle of Wight biodiversity action plan for protection and enhancement. The potential of 27 plots being used for leisure in various ways is completely contrary to that plan, as well as to the unitary development plan. 
 The subdivision of agricultural holdings has been widespread, certainly since 1993 when the proprietor of the company was referred to in this place as undertaking such activity. I was supplied with a good deal of information about his company, which is called Gladwish Land Sales and which boasts that it is the official sponsors of the Herne Bay football club—I do not think that that is related to its land sales activities. It advertises on the internet some 74 different sites in different parts of the country, from Ashmansworthy and Ashwater in Devon to Winfrith in Dorset and Wittersham in Kent—and let us not forget Shorwell and Alverstone in my constituency. The company gives information to the purchasers of the land. For example, it quotes an article of 22 March 2001 from the Daily Mail, the headline of which is, ''Your house is illegal but it's your human right''. The article goes on: 
''A £750,000 house condemned as 'the most flagrant breach of planning permission' has been saved from the bulldozers so as not to infringe the human rights of the owner.
It is the first time that the human rights legislation which came controversially into force in October has been used in a planning dispute and could have serious implications for development laws.''
 That is quoted, I am sure, with the intention of increasing the value of the small plots of land that the company has set about selling. The company also tells people about caravans on land—I am indebted to my constituent, Miss V. A Gwynn of Shalfleet on the Isle of Wight for passing on this information. The company says: 
''A Farmer is permitted to have a 'shelter for seasonal worker' on his/her land.
To be a Farmer you have to have at least an acre of land and be registered as a farmer with the MAFF. The Ministry can also sometimes give you help with buying raw produce to start your crop''—
 that sounds unlikely, but still. It goes on: 
''A shelter for a seasonal worker can be a caravan and it can be used day and night as long as you are working on the land, therefore you require products that grow all the year round. Being a shelter, it is never called your 'home' and you should have a home elsewhere.
As it is not your home you do not pay rates on it but likewise you cannot demand a refuse service or any other services that are supplied by local councils.''
 It appears that this practice is widespread. In an Adjournment debate on 4 April 2003, you, Mr. Hurst, referred to parcels dividing land into 236 individual plots with an asking price of between £3,000 and £6,000 a plot, and you reported that Farmers Weekly had run an article in March on the problem in Norfolk in which a spokesman for Gladwish Land Sales was quoted as saying: 
''It might be that one day some of these plots will get permission for development.''
 The key thing is the hope value—or, at least, that value with regard to the potential for development. However, the hope value is not the only key thing. There is also the current-use value of the land when it is divided up into sites for holiday caravans and, perhaps, for camping—not for use as an organised caravan park, or anything of that kind. That is also causing difficulty. The land does not have to be physically divided. So long as individuals can recognise their plots, they can put caravans on them—moveable caravans rather than mobile homes, which in my experience are seldom mobile—and they can use them as and when they wish, which may be far from often. 
 My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir John Stanley) referred to the same issue on 5 June 2003, when he mentioned a site of nature conservation interest that is also an area of outstanding natural beauty in his constituency. The then Minister for Social Exclusion and Deputy Minister for Women replied that an article 4 direction had been issued: I understand that those directions can be used in these cases. 
 My hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) took part in an Adjournment debate on 9 July in which he referred to similar divisions of land by families of travellers. That is difficult for planners to deal with, because it is hard to enforce the use of land in a wide variety of ownerships—some of them, perhaps, well known and others less well known. In my experience, most 
 planning committees do not regard enforcement as the highest priority: some of them do—particularly those in the metropolitan green belt—but others do not. 
 An official of the National Farmers Union wrote: 
''We would agree that this nettle should be grasped, though we do have reservations about the approach adopted in your New Clause.''
 I, too, have reservations about that approach, but it was the best that I could come up with. I hope that the Minister will respond in a manner that indicates how she feels that this nettle can be grasped. 
 I will not describe the architecture of the new clause because it is perfectly clear, but my key objective is that, whether or not the land is divided physically or merely in ownership, it should under certain conditions be subject to the requirement for planning permission. 
 I defined ''subdivision'' as 
''one or more units of less than one hectare''.
 It is clearly possible to sell off one area of less than one hectare from a field so that one does not need two or more units of less than one hectare. I have also defined an ''agricultural holding'', and I have suggested that planning permission should be required either when it is subdivided for the purpose of sale or when it is sold having been subdivided in the past 10 years.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: It is fortunate that three of the protagonists in the debate of 9 July, which has been referred to, are present: you, Mr. Hurst, who had a problem with Gladwish Land Sales; the Minister, who replied on that occasion; and me. It is useful to refer back to what happened on that occasion to remind the Committee of the problem.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight introduced his new clause excellently, and the Committee is indebted to him for bringing up the matter so that it can be debated. I think that there are problems with his new clause, but in essence he has tabled a measure to deal with a problem that definitely needs a remedy. 
 In the 9 July debate, citing an example that you had given, Mr. Hurst, I referred to the fact that 
''Gladwish Land Sales Ltd. bought a 40-acre plot and subdivided it into plots of one fifth of an acre. The fear was that those who bought plots would start unauthorised development by putting up fences and putting in roads, hard-standing for caravans and so on, and that the whole area would become an eyesore.''
 That mirrors the experiences of my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight and the reason why he has tabled his new clause. 
 The question is what to do with such problems; the issue spills over into unauthorised development by travellers. The two are connected, although not intimately. I also said: 
''Planning permission is required for a change of use from agriculture to gardens and amenity land. There could be a minor change in the law, so that if plots were of an inadequate size to be viable for agricultural purposes—that would certainly be true in the Braintree case—planning permission would be required to subdivide the land. That is a germ of a solution.''
 I went on to mention that previously 
''the Minister said that
'if the problem is occurring on farm land, those affected could ask the local planning authority to consider whether anything has occurred to create a situation where agriculture realistically could no longer be carried out, and therefore whether an unlawful material change of use . . . has occurred . . . If no application for change of use has been submitted, the local authority may decide, subject to its own legal advice, that enforcement action would be feasible and appropriate.' ''
 Although I have suggested that route to Ministers and we have had correspondence on the matter, from my own planning experience I think that it would be difficult to obtain such an application for a change of use. Therefore, a stronger sanction needs to be introduced in law. 
 In addition to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) has been working on the problem for a long time. He has suggested that we need to introduce to planning law the concept of a notice to remedy when significant harm has been caused and he has said that in cases of significant harm a notice could be served on a person whose identity was unknown to the local planning authority. That concept is not new; it exists in injunction law, whereby an injunction can be served on a person or persons unknown. My hon. Friend has also described criminal sanctions, although I have reservations about those. 
 I mentioned in the 9 July debate that my hon. Friend had suggested that 
''if the person on whom the notice was served refused to reinstate the land, the local authority should be entitled to do that work itself and to charge the person who created the problem. The fine and any costs could be registered under the Local Land Charges Act 1975.''
 I went on: 
''We must seriously consider all those matters when the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Bill returns to this House and is recommitted to a Standing Committee in September or October. I undertook in my letter to the previous Under-Secretary that the Opposition would co-operate with the Government in drafting and agreeing relevant amendments.''—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 9 July 2003; Vol. 408, c. 259–60WH.]
 I have had a conversation with the Minister for Housing and Planning, who is only too aware of the problem and who recognises that something needs to be done. I have skated around some of what could be done. I suspect that the Minister who replies—I am not sure whether it will be the Minister for Housing and Planning or the other Minister—will say that the Bill is not the right vehicle, but exactly the same argument as applies to high hedges is involved. A serious problem needs to be remedied. 
 An associated difficulty is that involving travellers buying up pieces of land and stationing caravans there, without planning permission, as a permanent encampment, using the exemption in the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. That is a similar problem—unauthorised use of land—that the planning system seems incapable of dealing with. I would like some assurance that Ministers recognise the problems—which will not go away, but will get worse—and intend to deal with them. If the Minister says, as I suspect she will, that the Bill is not the right vehicle to deal with the problems, I would like some assurance that she intends to take the problems seriously and produce legislation in future. The 
 problem is that there is a planning Bill only once every 10 years, and I am not sure where the matter will be dealt with if not in the Bill.

Matthew Green: I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for Isle of Wight on tabling the new clause. I think that the memory of the hon. Member for Cotswold fails him slightly because I, too, was present at the recent debate.
 There is indeed a difficulty, and it has been outlined well. The issue becomes a problem because it goes beyond people putting caravans on land and using it that way. There is great danger that in most cases the plots of land are bought by people who are not local—in fact, they may even live abroad. Such plots are bought over the internet as a speculation and then just left. They grow wild and fall out of use, which can be of considerable detriment to the countryside, particularly in areas of outstanding natural beauty. 
 We have heard about a few areas that suffer from the problem. I understand that it affects Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Isle of Wight, Kent, Lancashire, Oxfordshire, Suffolk, Surrey, Sussex, Wiltshire, Dorset and Norfolk, and those are just the places affected so far. Shropshire is not yet on that list, but I have great fears that we could be one of the next to be hit. At least eight companies that I have information on are dealing in that business. I understand that one company suggested on its website, although the suggestion has since been removed, that it is unethical for prospective purchasers to approach the local planning department to discover the development potential of land before completing their purchase, so we see some of the techniques that may have been used to encourage people to buy plots. 
 Before the Minister tells us some ways that we might deal with the problem, I want to concentrate on possible routes that might be used and why they are not working. Clearly, the erection of unlinked demarcation posts does not constitute development as defined in section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. The erection of fencing does, but it is allowed under the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995. If there is fencing, the local planning authority can act to withdraw the GPDO article 4 directions, but it cannot take action retrospectively. To withdraw an article 4 direction, one has to predict that a problem will arise. Also, I understand that in some cases quite large fields are subdivided in a single weekend, so clearly the order will not deal with the problems that exist.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. Of course he was present on 9 July and he made a pertinent contribution.
 I meant to deal with the article 4 procedure in my speech. The problem with the procedure, as clearly identified by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling in a dreadful case in his constituency, is that although it can be issued by the local authority it then has to be confirmed by the Secretary of State. In the dreadful case I refer to, it 
 took six months for the article 4 direction to be effected but, as the hon. Member for Ludlow said, such changes can take place over a weekend. The mechanisms in the planning system are simply not rapid enough to deal with such developments.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent point.
 A local planning authority can make a discontinuance order by virtue of section 102 of the 1990 Act, which requires fencing to be removed prior to the article 4 direction. However, that provision carries a liability to pay compensation, so local authorities might even have to pay the people who are attempting to exploit the countryside—that is the simplest way of putting it. 
 There is a possibility of using an untidy land notice under section 215 of the 1990 Act, but that is applicable only when land has become seriously degraded. The recipients can appeal to the magistrates court. That consumes local planning authorities' resources and does not deal with the problem of the fencing, which is one of the visual impacts on the countryside. 
 The change of land use has already arisen as a possible means of enforcement, but it could be difficult to prove that a change has taken place and it might not result in the removal of the posts and fences. It would be almost impossible, particularly if the land were in the hands of different owners, to use that provision to get the fences removed. 
 The final course left open to local authorities is compulsorily to purchase the land. They could, at some considerable cost, do that under section 226 of the 1990 Act, if there is a purpose that is necessary to achieve the interests of proper planning of the area in which the land is situated. It would take the local authority a lot of time and could cost a lot of money. It appears that none of the possible routes to deal with that problem have the remedies at the moment. 
 The hon. Member for Isle of Wight has done the Committee a service in bringing the issue forward. I suspect that the proposals are not technically perfect, as is always the case with Opposition amendments, and will not be accepted as they stand. I would, however, like the Government to try to make it clear how they intend to deal with things. They might say, ''The Bill is not the vehicle. It is dealing with the system, rather than the detail of planning.'' We need a commitment to get the changes through in another way—for example, through changes to the General Permitted Development Order 1995. The Department consulted on that and, at the end of last year or early this, said that it had decided not to make any changes.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I suggest that two simple things could be done. First, we could alter the presumption that the local planning authority may issue an article 4 direction stopping the development stone dead—that has to be confirmed by the Secretary of State and cannot come into effect until the Secretary of State has confirmed it.
 Secondly, there is the route that I have suggested to the Minister on change of land use. If one has to get 
 planning permission to convert agricultural land to a tennis court or a garden, there is no reason why one should not have to obtain such permission, under a change in the law, for converting it to paddocks. If that were the law, the owner could be required to reinstate the land to its former use and, if they did not do that, the local authority could come in, do the work and charge for it—however many owners there were.

Matthew Green: There may be merit in both those routes. If the Ministers will consider seriously how to deal with the problem, perhaps they might consider other similar problems around GPDOs that also need looking into.
 I do not want to trouble the Committee by tabling another new clause to be debated some time next week, but I shall throw into the pot the difficulty of adjoining fields being leased or owned by a company that holds car boot sales on those fields. If that company held 13 such sales a year on each field and if there were five or six fields on the same road, the residents there would have to put up with one or two car boot sales every weekend of the year. That would be an abuse of the GPDO. The Ministers promote article 4 as a means of dealing with such a problem, but because it already happens there is an issue around the payment of compensation—it has to be removed before the article 4 direction can be issued. 
 I hope that the Ministers will consider that in the round and that they will not come up with a one-fix solution. Perhaps they could look at a range of problems that effectively come from the GPDO route and promise the Committee that there will be a solution presently. I believe that the solution could come through regulations. We do not need primary legislation to deal with the issues at hand.

Sydney Chapman: I, too, join colleagues in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight on introducing what I believe is an important issue, the seriousness of which is gathering pace almost as we speak. I am indebted to the CPRE for sending me a briefing paper, and I am sure that the hon. Member for Ludlow has been drawing heavily on it. Indeed, he has saved me a little time, because I do not need to rehearse the points that he made. I will begin by addressing three separate but related points.
 First, I mentioned earlier in our proceedings the profound effect that the Human Rights Act 1998 will have on town planning law. That Act embraces the legislation created by the European Court of Human Rights, and Committee members may recall—the Ministers certainly will—that somebody challenged our planning appeals system and public inquiry system under that Act, but the House of Lords accepted the Government's appeal. Our constituents are beginning to realise that—rightly or wrongly—they can challenge a great deal of our law through the Human Rights Act. I mention that as a friendly warning to the Government. I do not think that they have realised quite what they have undertaken by incorporating the ECHR legislation into British law. 
 Secondly, the issue under discussion is largely to do with the grossly different value between the cost of 
 agricultural land and the cost of that land if it has development permission. I am old enough to remember serving in 1986 on the Select Committee on the Environment—as it was then called. It conducted an inquiry into the metropolitan green belt, which was of keen interest to my constituents in north London. In 1986, the average value of agricultural land in the metropolitan green belt area was £2,500 per acre. If that land got permission for development, its value immediately went up to £250,000 per acre. Today, 17 years later, I do not think that I am far wrong in saying that the cost of such agricultural land has gone down from £2,500 per acre to perhaps as low as £1,500 per acre, but the value of metropolitan green belt land with planning permission has probably gone up to £5 million per acre. Therefore, there is a tremendous incentive to develop land, if that is at all possible. 
 Thirdly, I note that the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight is termed in phrases relating to agricultural holdings, but this problem could extend beyond agricultural land to other forms of land. It is important to remember that, given the price difference, a lot of land in established green belts throughout the country can be not particularly attractive, yet have an inherent enhanced value. 
 Although I am persuaded by the two suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold about making changes within the existing planning law, I am inclined to agree with the CPRE that the existing town planning legislation offers no satisfactory means of addressing the problem, for the reasons given by the hon. Member for Ludlow. 
 Local planning authorities may serve an article 4 direction only when it is expedient to do so. That is another relevant factor—although, for technical reasons, I will not bore the Committee with that at this time. Whether or not we are dealing with what is euphemistically called an untidy land notice or a change of use, on balance I do not think that we could take any effective action to deal with this problem through those means. 
 In conclusion, it is possible compulsorily to acquire such land—I cannot remember whether my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold or the hon. Member for Ludlow mentioned that. I hold the old-fashioned view that compulsory purchase should be a last resort only. Also, if it is employed in this sort of case, it will be costly to the taxpayer, so I do not recommend such a route. The problem does not yet exist in my constituency, but it does next door in Hertsmere and the issue has been raised by my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). 
 I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold mention the work done by my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay, who is presumably a lawyer. If I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold correctly, my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay thought that the right way to deal with the problem is by a notice to remedy or an injunction. I do not claim to be competent enough to say yes or no to 
 that, but I ask the Minister to treat seriously my hon. Friend's suggestion. 
 This is a serious problem, which is despoiling goodly and increasing parts of the countryside. In setting down their posts, people will move the boundaries a bit and perhaps strip the surface of the ground, which will make the place look even more unsightly. Then a few bricks or a caravan will appear. That must be tackled quickly and at its source. In the past 25 years, there has been only one case that I know of in my constituency where the green belt has been breached. It was breached by somebody with an agricultural holding, who happened to be on the windward side of a good chunk of my constituency. He introduced a pig farm, as he was perfectly entitled to do. The odour from that farm, rather than the unsightly buildings themselves that had been created, led public opinion to support in part the idea that the pig farm should go. People were prepared to have a small housing estate in its place. 
 People know how to abuse our planning system if they choose to do so. My conclusion from the debate so far is that this injunction law or notice to remedy route will probably be the most effective way of tackling the problem. I say that without any disrespect to my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, to whom the Committee should be extremely grateful—I certainly am—for raising this serious emerging problem, which is scarring too many of the landscapes of our green and pleasant land.

Mark Francois: In my brief contribution I want to reinforce the thrust of the points that have already been put to the Minister, and to amplify the plea for action. As you will be aware, Mr. Hurst, this is certainly a problem in Essex. There are a number of instances of exactly this type of activity taking place. It is happening in your constituency, Mr. Hurst, and I am sad to report that it is now also happening in my constituency of Rayleigh.
 I want to reinforce three points. First, the people who act in this way understand the law very well indeed. Activity is clearly co-ordinated in some cases. These people behave in a particular way and there are patterns to the behaviour. They have obviously taken specific legal advice about exactly how far they can push the boundaries of their activities. Such people are not acting at random; they know exactly what they are doing, and they know how to exploit weaknesses in the law. 
 Secondly, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold pointed out, these people are working on a completely different time cycle. Although the law acts at a relatively sedate pace, these people suddenly appear, practically overnight—during a weekend, in some cases. That is what has happened in my constituency. Suddenly, a group of people appeared and occupied some green belt land, with the support of the owner who, it transpired, had sold it to them. The law has to catch up and to be able to react with similar vigour to those who attempt to despoil our countryside in that way. 
 Rochford district council, one of my two local authorities, is involved in a complicated legal action in similar circumstances to those that I have described. The hon. Member for Ludlow mentioned some of the current legal alternatives available, but also pointed out, in detail, some drawbacks to each of them. There was no one neat and fast solution. In Rochford, the council has been doing everything it can under law to address the case, but so far it has taken them almost a year and cost a fair amount of public money to keep coming back to court. The council tax payer has had to finance that, and the people involved are still there. 
 My third point is that it is patently evident to me from my constituency experience, that the law is not powerful enough. I am assured that officials will look into the matter in detail, and I will be interested to hear what the Ministers have to say. By one method or another, Ministers must act. There must be some deterrent to protect the countryside, and in particular the green belt, from these people who have learned to exploit the law so effectively for their own gain. We must not let that go on. We must have a firm promise of action, by one route or another, from the Ministers. I conclude by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight for raising what I believe to be a genuinely important issue in an appropriate manner.

Yvette Cooper: New clause 2 would require planning permission to be obtained for the subdivision of an agricultural holding into units of less than 1 hectare for the purpose of sale. It would also require planning permission to be obtained for the sale of an agricultural holding that has been subdivided since 1 July 1993 for a purpose other than that of sale. I recognise the attempts that many hon. Members have made this afternoon to deal with the issue. Those points have been raised by you, Mr. Hurst, and other hon. Members, in Adjournment debates, in correspondence and in meetings. Sometimes they were raised as concerns about the impact on the local environment, with areas falling into misuse, and sometimes they were raised with regard to gypsies and travellers using sub-plots.
 I would like to put aside the issue of gypsies and travellers, because that raises other issues related to the availability of authorised sites and similar matters. Those problems are important, but raise the further issues of preventing unauthorised encampments. We need to look at the provision of authorised sites for gypsies and travellers in those circumstances. However, there is clearly a broader issue about the dividing into sub-plots, which is often initiated by those who seek to make money from speculating on changes in land use in future and selling the land to others. 
 We need to be honest about the fact that we have a problem and no solution. Hon. Members have offered different ways of responding, all of which involve further difficulties. The new clause deals with the sale of land rather than the use to which the land will be put. That is quite a difficult stretch of the approach to planning law. It is not what the land use planning system is intended to cover, which is the use to which land is put. Subdivision of land for genuine agricultural purposes is perfectly acceptable and 
 should not require planning permission. Likewise, selling a plot of land that remains in use as agricultural land is perfectly acceptable. It is only when the intention is to put the land to a different use that the planning system comes into play, as it should. Planning permission is required for any material change of use. 
 The subdivision of agricultural land, particularly in areas of outstanding natural beauty, can have an adverse effect on the scenic nature of the environment. The subdivision itself can be unsightly and can even lead to longer-term effects. If a developer buys a plot of land and discovers that planning permission has not been granted for the use that he or she has in mind, there is a real danger that the plot could fall into a state of neglect and disrepair.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I want to clarify something. The Minister said that subdivision is a particular problem for areas of outstanding natural beauty, which is the highest planning designation, but if one lives next door, it is equally a problem whether the subdivision takes place in an area of outstanding natural beauty, in a national park, on green belt land or even in a green field. We should not necessarily limit the discussion to areas of outstanding natural beauty.

Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. I do not intend to limit the discussion. The issue with areas of outstanding natural beauty is that the effect is on the scenic nature of the land. If we are talking about a plot of land next door, it may not be the scenic nature of that land that is affected, but there may be other issues relating to convenience and the way in which the land is used.
 The question is, what are the ways of approaching the different issues and what might we be able to do about them? The hon. Member for Ludlow raised the issue of fencing and posts, and talked about the way in which that problem arises. Certainly, individual plots will usually be marked off by some form of fencing or posts, which can be erected without the need for planning permission because they are covered by a permitted development right. 
 If the local authority wishes to remove that permitted development right, it can do so by the article 4 direction, to which several hon. Members have referred. The article 4 direction is supposed to be used only in exceptional circumstances, when a threat to the interests of the area, or proper planning, has been demonstrated, and the direction needs to be confirmed. 
 If the article 4 direction is to be any use when a threat exists, prompt action is required by local government and Central Government to ensure that the permitted development rights are removed before the uncontrolled and potentially harmful development takes place. We are in the process of contacting Government offices to emphasise the importance of prompt action when being requested to confirm an article 4 direction. Hon. Members have raised problems with us and cited cases in which that did not occur and delays prevented the action from being useful.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: As I understand it, the problem is that the planning authority issues an article 4 direction, which then has to be confirmed by the Secretary of State, after he has considered all the objections. As I already pointed out when citing the case of my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling, that can take up to six months. If the presumption were altered so that the local planning authority could issue an article 4 direction that would be effective immediately and would then have to be confirmed by the Secretary of State, having considered all the objections, that would be a much more satisfactory route.

Yvette Cooper: That is one of the issues that we need to consider further. Officials are currently working with local authorities to explore what more can be done within existing legislation to address environmental adverse effects of the subdivision or sale of agricultural land; to ensure that local authorities are aware of their powers; and to work through what the obstacles are in more detail. Some of the points that the hon. Gentleman raised about the time confirmation takes and whether there are different ways of dealing with the matter are exactly the kinds of things that we want to explore in more detail with local authorities. We are also reviewing the permitted development rights and examining the enforcement regimes in the light of clear changes of use in some of these areas. The question then becomes one of enforcement in relation to breaches of a planning law where a change in use has clearly taken place and should not have done so.

Matthew Green: On many occasions, the local authority will have no idea that a change is about to occur. So the issuing of an article 4 direction, however quick and whatever the presumption, will fail to stop it happening. As I understand it, once it has happened, the local authority can issue a discontinuance order before it issues an article 4 direction, but it must pay compensation. This affects car boot sales in my constituency just as much as it affects the subdivision of land. The Minister has not yet said anything about this. Where the problem, or variety of problems, already exists, it seems highly unfair on the local taxpayer to bear the burden of paying for the problem to be sorted out. Will the Minister say something about compensation?

Yvette Cooper: Not in detail at this stage. We are seeking to explore these sorts of issues with local authorities to try to work through them. There is no obvious and easy solution. If there were, we could all easily table amendments to the planning Bill and sort the whole thing out. We also need to examine the potentially perverse consequences of possible restrictions. So I would proceed with caution. As I said, we are keen to work through all this in some detail with local authorities, and we are also examining as part of our reviews parallel issues regarding the permitted development rights and enforcement regimes. What more can be done to help mitigate this problem? I can therefore tell the Committee that I will consider these matters further.

Matthew Green: I thank the Minister for giving way again. She says that she will consider the issue. Will she
 give us some sort of time scale? I believe that the Deputy Prime Minister announced a review of the general permitted development order two years ago. About a year ago, he came back to say that the Government had consulted and were not going to make any changes. I am receiving letters about car boot sales at the rate of about a dozen a week. At the moment, the local council is finding it difficult to deal with the issue, and I am sure that other hon. Members will receive letters about subdivision at some considerable rate.
 I am concerned that the Minister is saying that the Government will examine the issue. I wonder if that means another two years before we hear that the Government will not make any more changes.

Yvette Cooper: I certainly undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman much more rapidly than that about the problem of car boot sales, which he faces in his area. I should be grateful if he could give me further details.
 I am happy to report to the Committee on progress made in relation to the broader issues, but I caution Members about believing there to be a simple answer. I undertake to consider the matter further with local authorities, as will the Department. 
 The permitted development rights consultation is expected later this year, which is a relatively rapid time horizon. However, it would be inappropriate to accept the new clause at this stage because it raises difficult issues about expecting planning permission to deal with the sale of land, rather than its use.

Mark Francois: As we have heard, this problem has already been discussed for two years. Several hon. Members from different parties have politely but plainly told the Minister that the problem is getting worse. It is spreading around the country because the people involved are fully cognisant of the detail of the law. The Under-Secretary has said that the Government are advising local authorities about their powers. We have heard all that rehearsed this afternoon. Local authorities know what powers they have and how weak they are. We are all trying to inform her that there is a genuine sense of urgency. To say that there will be a consultation exercise some time later in the year, when the Government have already had two years does not cut the mustard. We need action in the near term. Will the Under-Secretary take that away from the Committee and do something about this?

Yvette Cooper: Hon. Members must recognise that to deal with the problem we need a solution that will work. Many of the solutions that have been offered, albeit in good faith, could lead to other problems or have difficulties attached—exactly as I have explained in relation to the problem with the new clause. I recognise the problem that the new clause is trying to solve, but the solution that is offered is not appropriate and would cause all sorts of other difficulties, including around the subdivision of land for genuine agricultural reasons.
 We must recognise that some times there are not simple, easy solutions for certain issues and that we might need to look further at what can be done. If there were a simple solution, we would all agree on it and there would be consensus in the Committee, as there has been on other issues where we have recognised that specific things can be done to remedy existing problems, whether within or without the planning system. 
 The new clause does not solve the problem we are talking about in the way that it needs to and it creates further additional problems. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to withdraw it.

Andrew Turner: The urgency of the matter has been demonstrated, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Mr. Francois). I remind the Committee that the problem arose not in 2001, but in 1993 when the proprietor of one of the companies was criticised in the House for his activities. I am sure that it is not only this Government that bears responsibility for not doing anything about that. However, it is getting worse. As I said before, there are 74 locations on the list that I have before me, which is dated 16 May 2001. Only one of those is in Yorkshire—at Oakworth. I do not know where that is, but I know that it is not near Pontefract or Castleford, because it is in West Yorkshire. [Interruption.] I am sorry. My geography is clearly awry. We do not know very much when we get north of the Solent.
 There are many sites in the south and south-east of England and there is no reason why such activity should not spread to some of the parts of England that are almost as attractive as the Isle of Wight, such as Ludlow, Pontefract and Castleford. I believe that we must take advantage of the existing legislation, because as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold says, there is only one planning Bill every 10 years—unless we are extremely unlucky. Although I accept that the new clause may not be the perfect remedy, I am clear that the legislation is the right vehicle. To change the metaphor, it would be a great pity if the Minister were to miss the bus.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: For a Bill to be recommitted to a Standing Committee is an unprecedented procedure and given that it is likely to be submitted to their lordships, where it will be given detailed scrutiny, it is unlikely that it will be on the statute book this year. That will probably happen next year, so gives the Government time to do something, if they are so minded. May I join my hon. Friend in urging the Minister to do something, if the Government have the time and are so minded. The problem is getting worse and it needs to be solved.

Andrew Turner: I agree. It is not unreasonable to say such things in the terms in which both my hon. Friend and my hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh have said them. I accept that the article 4 direction needs to be explored by Ministers and that it might turn out not to be the right route. However, I urge that, if possible, that should be done in time for amendments to be tabled—if not on Report, at least in another place, so that our noble Friends and other noble Lords can examine the Government's proposals and hold them to account before the Bill completes its progress.

Alan Hurst: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate whether he seeks to press the new clause or whether he wishes to withdraw it?

Andrew Turner: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 3

'After section 57 of the principal Act (planning permission required for development) there is inserted the following section— 
 ''57A Planning permission in areas of high environmental value 
 (1) Notwithstanding the provisions of section 55(b) and (c) of the principal Act, planning permission is required in areas of high environmental value for road signs and street furniture (including street lighting). 
 (2) In this section 'areas of high environmental value' means— 
 (a) National Parks, as defined in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949; 
 (b) Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty, as defined in the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000; 
 (c) Sites of Special Scientific Interest, as defined in the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981; 
 (d) Heritage Coasts; 
 (e) Conservation Areas, as defined in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990; and 
 (f) Places of such other types as the Secretary of State may by Order designate for the purposes of this section. 
 (3) In this section 'Heritage Coast' is any part of the coastline of England and Wales that has been so designated by agreement between the local authority and the Countryside Agency or the Countryside Council for Wales (Cyngor Cefn Gwlad Cymru).''.'.—[Mr. Andrew Turner.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Turner: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 New clause 3 is about areas of high environmental value. I am pleased to say that the issue is slightly less technical than the matters that were discussed in relation to the previous two proposed new clauses. It is almost a matter of aesthetic judgment. However, the aesthetic judgment of planners, and of the population in general, is not shared as frequently as we should like by highway engineers. Highway engineers are not the only people whom I target here, but they are among the principal despoilers of the countryside—and of urban areas as well. I am indebted to the CPRE, now the Campaign to Protect Rural England, for its booklet on the cluttered countryside. It illustrates the kind of damage that can be done not only to the countryside but to villages and towns by ill-considered development that is not counted as development for the purposes of planning legislation. My purpose is to bring within the ambit of that legislation road signs and street furniture, including street lighting, in areas of high environmental value, as defined in subsection 2 of the proposed new clause. 
 As an example, Isle of Wight council is considering a number of applications for Tetra masts, some of which are approved under the general development order. Such masts are different from conventional telephone masts, and have different scientific properties. However, at the moment they are allowed under the general development order and can be put in 
 an area in which there is already a mast without any further permission. 
 I have here an illustration of the approach along the A303 road, west of Amesbury, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), to a world heritage site, Stonehenge. It is one of the few such sites in this country, yet some 30 road signs are visible to the motorist along the approach to Stonehenge on that route. I could name another example: the turning off the A303 from Andover for Salisbury. I am pleased to say that we do not have that many road signs in the Isle of Wight because there are not that many places to go, so this is not a complaint about my local highway engineers. Indeed, it is hard to get lost, because if one goes far enough one gets to the sea. 
 Another problem—

Alan Hurst: I am sure that hon. Members will realise that Hansard does not carry illustrations at the present time, so if the hon. Gentleman refers to an illustration, a good narrative is required to go with it.

Andrew Turner: I am most grateful for that and shall try not to detain the Committee for too long by narrating the nature of what I have to show, but I shall give another example from a conservation area.
 I am holding up a picture of an approach to a village on which hon. Members can again see a large number of road signs, but also a suburban footpath. Pavements are provided for good reasons, but they can be provided in an urban manner or in a rural manner. It is appropriate that on the approach to a village a pavement should be provided in a rural manner, not an urban manner. 
 I have discussed some of those issues with the planners and engineers in my constituency, because in Cowes, where I lived until quite recently, Union road and Church road have recently attracted a residents' parking scheme. Initially there were four posts, each 4 ft high—I imagine that Hansard does not convey hand signals either, but hon. Members can imagine what those posts looked like—with signs on them that were something like 1 ft by 9 in , along with other signs of a similar dimension, fixed to the wall. Those fittings have been replaced by 11 posts that are 7 ft high, with signs on them that are something like 18 in by 8 in, in a very small area indeed—certainly smaller than the width of the river outside the Windows here. 
 To be fair, that example is not in a conservation area, but on the border of one. However, anyone who walks through a town or city can see the damage done by ill-considered bus shelters, litter bins, bicycle racks and signs of all description, some of which the local highways authority have erected and others that the Highways Agency has no doubt erected. Many comply with all sorts of regulations that are provided in detail by Ministers from another Department. 
 Such features spoil the effect and look of areas of high environmental value, which we have a responsibility to protect. That is the purpose of the new clause, which is simple and will, I hope, benefit those areas where the highways authority is one council and the planning authority is another. I am 
 fortunate that we have a unitary council on the Isle of Wight, although I do not say that that is the solution for all areas, because it is probably wrong for shire counties. Despite that, I can see that we have some advantage in my constituency in that highways and planning are nearer together than they would be were they in two different authorities. However, although there is scope for them to work together, they do not always do so, even within a single authority.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. He does the Committee a service in bringing the issue of road signs to our attention.
 Again, the problem affects not only areas of high landscape value, important conservation areas, areas of outstanding natural beauty and national parks; there is a general trend throughout the country for more and more signs to be erected on our highways. The problem is that with more and more legislation, highways authorities are trying to cover every eventuality. Not only that, they are advertising commercial interests by erecting so-called brown signs. There is a proliferation of brown signs, which are supposed to be guides for tourists—that is how authorities get round it—but in fact they are advertising commercial ventures. 
 Highways authorities and the Government used to have the philosophy that only those signs that were absolutely necessary in the interests of highway safety were to be erected and that every other sign was to be resisted. I represent a constituency that is about 80 per cent. covered by areas of outstanding beauty and yet I have a proliferation of such signs. Not only is there the argument advanced by my hon. Friend that they are unsightly, which they certainly are, but there is also an issue of safety. The more signs there are, the more likely it is that the motorist will ignore the sign that is really important because his mind will be so focused on other signs that he will not focus on the one that is really important.

Andrew Turner: I agree absolutely with that. Would my hon. Friend also accept that the bigger signs become, the faster motorists are able to drive while they read them, which in turn has consequences for road safety?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I agree with that, too, but they have to be big enough. There is nothing more annoying than small road signs that one cannot read in a car until one is right next to them. That is equally unsafe because one is concentrating so hard on trying to read that road sign with small writing on it, one is not paying 100 per cent. attention to what is going on elsewhere on the road. The answer is to minimise the number of signs. Size is important, so that people can be aware of signs that are of critical importance, such as stop signs. A stop sign means stop; it does not mean a temporary slowing down—the wheels have to stop turning. One so often sees that stop signs are honoured more in the breach than in the observance.
 My hon. Friend has done the Committee a service. I am not sure that his new clause is the solution. I am not sure that this is a planning matter. It is perhaps one that should not be dealt with in legislation. 
 However, we are coming on to discuss a plethora of RPGs and PPGs—supposedly to be renamed PPSs—and the correct solution might be that the matter should be dealt with through guidance to planning authorities and highways. I am not sure that primary legislation is the right vehicle because it is impossible to cater for every circumstance in primary legislation.

Sydney Chapman: I want to draw the Committee's attention to subsection 2(e) of new clause 3 tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight. Understandably, he and my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold have referred to areas of outstanding natural beauty and the countryside. However, by and large conservation areas are mainly found in urban and suburban areas, and also in villages in what I regard as developed areas, although they are in the main extremely beautifully developed.
 The question concerns the eyesores of road signs and how often they are unnecessarily duplicated. I would have thought that it was quite reasonable not to have gallons of white and yellow paint poured on our road surfaces, when a small notice, or a colour band on a street light might be just as effective an alternative. In urban areas, the street litter and street furniture in otherwise pleasant streets are a ghastly sight to behold. 
 The difficulty that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has in introducing his new clause is that beauty is a subjective judgment. I have no doubt that certain traffic engineers think that the signs on our motorways and streets are beautiful things to behold. That is a view I do not happen to share. I invite everyone going home tonight—if we finish before nightfall—to look at any street that they walk down and imagine the street furniture removed from that highway, and how much more pleasant it would look. I am not naive enough to suggest that we do not need road signs, but we ought to make a positive effort to see how we could visually improve urban areas and the countryside, particularly designated and other beautiful areas. 
 The problem is multiplied by garish shop fascias, which are all too prevalent on our high streets. It seems that every shopkeeper has to compete with the shop next door by making his property stand out, which makes it more garish. We could take a much more intelligent and communal approach. I would like to go back to the old-fashioned hanging signs, which could tell us equally well what sort of shop we were approaching. Instead, we see letters 5 ft high displayed on scarlet or yellow fascia boards. 
 The fact is that we are all competing for attention—I am referring not to our political careers, but to the general environmental standards in town and country. I do not know whether the Bill is the right vehicle for my hon. Friend's new clause. I suspect that, for the third time running, the Minister will say that it is not—she may be allowed to keep the cup as a result. Nevertheless, we ought to take a much more intelligent approach to our street furniture, and the awful litter. What is there is not always necessary.

Matthew Green: I thought for a moment that the hon. Gentleman was going to suggest that we went back to the 1940s, when there were no road signs, as they had been removed because of the threat of German invasion. I doubt if anyone in the Room remembers that, but it would be interesting to know how people managed to get around.

Sydney Chapman: Unfortunately, I do remember it.

Matthew Green: I was trying to do the hon. Gentleman a good turn.
 The hon. Member for Isle of Wight has raised a significant issue. I hope the Minister will say that this can all be done through guidance—and that it will apply as much to the Highways Agency as to the highway authorities. The agency sometimes acts more unaccountably than local authorities, and I would like to see all those bodies brought into line. However, I issue a note of caution. 
 My constituency is the size of Greater London, and it is criss-crossed by many roads, not one of which is a motorway or dual carriageway. Only one trunk road, the A49, runs through it. Almost 40 per cent. of it is an area of outstanding natural beauty. If the new clause were enacted, the county council would forever be paying planning fees to erect new signs. There is quite a lot of pressure in Shropshire for 30 mph speed limits in all villages, all of which would require signage. There is huge public support for such speed limits, and the signage could be done sensitively, but if they required planning permission the county council would face an extra cost—one that I do not want it to have to bear.

Sydney Chapman: The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that some years ago, one of his predecessors—not his immediate predecessor—told me with pride that he had only one set of traffic lights in his constituency. The hon. Gentleman might like to take this opportunity to put in a bid for the town of Ludlow, which is regarded by many as being one of the most beautiful towns in the country.

Matthew Green: I am always happy to talk about Ludlow and the surrounding countryside—and other towns such as Much Wenlock, and Bridgnorth, where I live. They are all outstanding. I would recommend that members of the Committee visit the area, and spend some of their holiday time there. We now have more than one set of traffic lights, but still not many. It is probably only in the past decade that we have gained roundabouts in my part of the world. I am still very proud that there is not a McDonald's in all of my constituency, which is a good reason to come and visit it; if a McDonald's were ever suggested, the Minister would be hearing from me and could expect a call-in.
 This is a genuine issue, but new clause 3 is not the way to deal with it. For example, there are areas with little population and lots of roads. Signage is not a big problem in my constituency, but it would be a great expense for the county council to have to deal with those requirements out of its minuscule road safety budget. 
 There is also a lot of pressure to increase road safety. On a road in my constituency that runs through the Corvedale there have been six deaths and five separate accidents in the past six months. I have only just had a meeting with the police and the county highways department to discuss extra signage. If someone suggested that they had to go through the planning process to deal with a growing problem that needed to be reacted to quickly, I would be concerned. That is not the way forward, and I would be perturbed if the Minister suggested that it was. 
 There is clearly a significant problem in parts of the country. I hope that the Minister suggests a way through; the answer is probably guidance. Let us make sure that it is guidance that the Highways Agency, in particular, is keen to follow.

Yvette Cooper: New clause 3 would require planning permission to be obtained for road signs and street furniture, including street lighting, in areas of high environmental value. As the hon. Member for Ludlow said, the planning system has long recognised that certain types of development should be allowed to take place without an application for planning permission. That is designed to reduce the burden on the planning system of development types that are minor or non-controversial in nature, and also to ensure that such development is not unduly delayed.
 Section 55(2)(b) of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 makes it clear that the carrying out of work required for the maintenance or improvement of a road is not treated as development and therefore does not require planning permission. That means that authorities that need to install or replace traffic signs or street lighting can do so without having to apply for planning permission every time. The provision does not apply if development that is not exclusively for the maintenance of the roads would have significant adverse effects on the environment. Likewise, the Town and Country Planning (Control of Advertisements) Regulations 1992 allow the display of traffic signs without the need for planning permission provided they fall within the criteria set out in the regulations.

Andrew Turner: The Minister said that works that are not exclusively for the maintenance of the roads require permission. Does that include works for safety?

Yvette Cooper: As I said, the 1992 regulations also allow the display of traffic signs without the need for planning permission provided they fall within the criteria set out. My understanding is that that includes issues relating to safety. Therefore, signs that are needed for safety can be put in place without a delay that could cause risk to life or serious harm. That makes sense. The provisions enable a large number of facilities to be provided for essential public services, many of which can be required urgently. Removing those rights in areas of environmental value could create risk, and could lead to a significant additional burden for local planning authorities, and delays in providing such facilities.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Following on from the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight
 made, if highway maintenance and safety signs only are available without getting planning permission, would brown signs, which are supposed to inform visitors but often are just a cover to advertise a commercial venture, require planning permission? I am sure that some such signs in my constituency—and there has been a proliferation of them—do not have planning permission.

Yvette Cooper: Obviously, I cannot respond to comments on individual signs.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: But as a general point?

Yvette Cooper: As a general point, many of the signs that we are discussing may well be included under provisions which mean that no planning permission is required, whether that is under what the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 says about roads, or the control of advertisement regulations, or the further permitted development that is granted by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995, which applies to such things as street lighting. However, local authorities need to make judgments about each case and seek legal advice if there is any doubt.
 The issue raised by the new clause is that development in areas of high environmental value needs to be carried out with sensitivity towards the streetscape or local environment. Inappropriate or inappropriately sited street furniture or signage can spoil an otherwise attractive area. A recently published research report on the functioning of the General Permitted Development Order recommended that local authority permitted development rights might be made dependent on avoiding adverse impact on the streetscape, which would be assessed through a street management code. That is an interesting idea, which we are considering. It raises the possibility of addressing those concerns through guidance or other means without the need for primary legislation, which would cause additional burdens and simply would not be appropriate in many of the situations that we are discussing.

Matthew Green: While the Minister was speaking, I recalled that about 18 months ago, South Shropshire district council dealt with the similar issue of masts by writing its own policy, which means that they are all called in. Most of South Shropshire is an AONB, and when BT put up a mast for the police, it suddenly discovered that it had to remove it very quickly. It had assumed that the area was like the rest of the country, but the council had adopted a policy that meant that someone could not just put up a mast.
 In areas where planning is a sensitive issue, can councils or planning authorities write their own policies—in effect, article 4 variations of the GPDO—that would prevent such things from being erected without the council being able to intervene?

Yvette Cooper: Clearly, there are areas in which local authorities have discretion. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman's example would be more widely applicable. I will write to him, if I may.
 The overall position is that this issue can cause problems in some areas. However, it must be balanced against other needs, particularly against safety issues, and against other needs such as sensible, urgently needed public facilities, which the community requires not to be unduly delayed. Therefore, this type of measure would not be appropriate in the Bill. The issue is better dealt with by considering ideas such as those raised in the research report to which I referred earlier. I ask the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to withdraw the new clause.

Andrew Turner: The Minister is right: it is not appropriate to deal with the matter in the Bill. I tabled the new clause to secure a debate that took account of some of the issues that have arisen. Indeed, I will add one that did not arise, which is that when I was a member of Oxford city council, we had a protocol that the highways authority always consulted the conservation officer about any street furniture or highway development in a conservation area. As most of the western part of the city of Oxford was a conservation area, that was a significant responsibility. We soon learned that it was possible to take sensitive decisions sensibly within those confines so that there was no need for a long dispute with the planning authority. I would be grateful if that could emerge from the guidance that the Minister is preparing.
 I wish to underline a couple of points made by my hon. Friends and by the hon. Member for Ludlow. The first of them is to do with the highways authorities covering their backs by putting up more signs because they are concerned about safety. I sympathise with the hon. Member for Ludlow's experience of having to negotiate with a highways authority for more signs. I hope I do not speak out of turn when I say that the leader of Isle of Wight council—who is from the same political party as the hon. Gentleman—told me recently that she had been asked for more signs in a particular place, but had replied that more signs would not make any difference, because people simply drive too fast. Sometimes highways agencies cover their backs to no effect, which is even worse. I also agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold about the proliferation of brown signs. 
 This is clearly a planning matter, not least because it is the General Permitted Development Order and section 55 of the principal Act that excludes highway development from planning legislation; if it were not a planning matter, it would not be necessary to exclude it. 
 The key question is not whether this Bill is a suitable vehicle—I am confident that it is—but whether the clause is suitable. I understand why it may not be. I urge the Minister to consult the Department for Transport to find ways of implementing regulations—such as speed limits, and the 30 mph speed limit in particular. There has been pressure to introduce speed limits in narrow rural roads. One of the objections to that is that it will produce a further proliferation of signage, but the Department for Transport might be persuaded to think of ways to implement these regulations without—or with minimal—additional signage. I 
 suggest that whether a 40 mph speed limit applies on any rural road could be signified by whether there was a line down the middle of the road. That is a nice, simple method that would not encourage additional signage. 
 I am glad that Ministers are looking into the General Permitted Development Order. A determined approach is needed, and it would be best if that were to come from the local level, by local councils working with each other, but until we can persuade them to do that, they may need a little additional guidance from the Minister.

Matthew Green: One of the most effective ways for Ministers to address this matter would be to give greater flexibility to local councils to vary what is and is not permitted in their areas. That would allow us to be proactive in different areas: what might be a problem in the Isle of Wight might not be a problem in south Shropshire or vice versa.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman subscribes perfectly to Conservative policy on that.

Matthew Green: It is Liberal Democrat policy, too.

Andrew Turner: I am glad to hear that.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Before my hon. Friend finishes on this matter, I want to say that what I would like to come out of this debate is not only an understanding that a careful look will be given to all future signs, but that every highway authority in the land reviews every single sign to see whether it is absolutely necessary—and if it is not, it should be taken down.

Andrew Turner: I will certainly try to persuade my authority to do that, and I hope that my hon. Friend and other Committee members will try to persuade theirs to do so. That would be preferable to the Government telling them to do so, but it may be necessary for them to give a gentle push in the right direction: the Minister is nodding his head to that suggestion, and I accept that as a commitment, so I shall be happy to withdraw the amendment.

Yvette Cooper: I am happy to look further at the points that hon. Members have raised: we are already looking at the proposal that has come forward as a result of the research report. However, we must stop knocking all signs. We have just had a load of signs put up in Castleford that we are proud of: they tell people who are driving through Castleford, and who do not know what a wonderful place it is, what it has to offer. Without those signs, they would just drive through the town without stopping. Hopefully, more drivers will stop because they see the wonderful signs telling them about the historic sites in Castleford. Let us not knock all signs.

Andrew Turner: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Alan Hurst: Order. For the convenience of the Committee, I have regrouped the new clauses. We are moving to new clause 22, and with that we shall take new clause 34.

New clause 22 - Revocation of planning permission

'.In the principal Act there shall be inserted— 
 ''Revocation of planning permission 
 75A. Where planning permission is granted for any development and— 
 (a) there has been a material inaccuracy in the information provided in the application for that permission; or 
 (b) there is evidence that the applicant has sought deliberately to mislead the planning authority; 
 the planning authority may revoke the grant of planning permission.''.'.—[Mr. Andrew Turner.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Turner: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to take the following: New clause 34—Compensation for revocation of planning permission etc.—
'(1) Section 107 of the principal Act (Compensation where planning permission revoked or modified) is amended as follows. 
 (2) After section 107(3)(b) of that Act there is inserted— 
 ''(c) any decision where planning permission is revoked or modified where it can also be demonstrated that information provided as part of or by the applicant in support of the application for the planning permission which is the subject of revoction or modification was materially inaccurate.''.'.

Andrew Turner: I am grateful to you, Mr. Hurst, for grouping the two new clauses together. They were tabled with the same point in mind: if material inaccuracy is found in the information provided to obtain planning permission, planning permission may be revoked. I discovered after tabling the first new clause that it would not exclude the local authority from the requirement to pay compensation for the revocation of planning permission, so I tabled the second new clause. I hope that the second new clause excludes the local authority from the requirement to pay compensation.
 There is always a debate about the accuracy of information put before planning committees. My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, who has great experience of such matters, agrees with that. For as long as I have been involved in politics, which is almost as long as him, I have had to represent either local residents or constituents in planning matters. Although I have tried to avoid as many planning matters as possible—that advice is given to us all once we are elected here—I regularly find myself drawn back in. 
 My greatest objection is when the process does not appear to have been handled fairly. In particular, people complain that there is nothing to stop someone putting forward inaccurate drawings or statements to the planning committee or, indeed, to a public inquiry. It can be argued that they are gaining pecuniary advantage by deception and have therefore committed a criminal act, but one must demonstrate that they did so knowingly, and even that does not revoke the planning permission. 
 I want to illustrate that point by referring to a house in Yarmouth in my constituency, which is situated on 
 a road of Victorian semi-detached villas. The developer proposed to build a matching but detached villa—if that is possible—on a site, which had been previously occupied by a bungalow, between the northernmost house and a scout hut. The developer submitted a picture of the villa with dimensions and a streetscape without dimensions. 
 The proposed development was marked as being of the same height as all the other villas in the road on the second drawing, so the neighbours were happy. Had the second drawing been to scale—the planning department at the Isle of Wight council also failed to produce a scale drawing—it would have been discovered that the new development was 9 ft higher than the existing villas. A careful examination of a scale drawing would also have revealed that the new house was set back significantly further than the existing villas. 
 The result was that people lost light and complained. However, there were no objections when the application was granted. When the development took place, the residents and Yarmouth town council were greatly upset at how the house stood out in the street, dominated the streetscape, overlooked other houses and was generally out of place. They said, ''We would have objected had we not been shown this misleading plan.'' I asked the local authority what it could do about it, and all it could have done about it—had it not been for the fact that the developer went on to build it even higher than specified in his scaled drawing—was write to the Royal Institute of British Architects, of which the architect was a member, and criticised him for putting in a misleading plan. Of course, not all architects are members of RIBA, or at least not all those who design houses are. 
 That is a perfect example—minor but important—of a misleading statement knowingly or negligently made to the planning committee. There are similar records of statements made before inquiries where promises are made and expressions are given of how a building is going to be used or has been used, as a consequence of which planning permission is granted. That is clearly wrong. There is no remedy; I believe there should be a remedy, and my proposals are the remedy.

Alan Whitehead: I intend to make something slightly more extensive than an intervention, but that is essentially what it is. Does the hon. Member for Isle of Wight consider the following to be an example of misleading information? Activities have been carried out on a site over a period of time such that the owner of a site who has obtained planning permission has started to develop that site, has laid foundations on it, but then appears to have no intention of completing the site. He could then have a completion notice served upon him after a long period of time. He makes a rather disingenuous protestation that he could go and build what was supposed to be put on the site in the first place, but after a long period of time that may not be relevant.
 I have in mind a case that my hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Peter Bradley) raised on 
 Second Reading. He referred planning permission given for the building of a new pub in his constituency a long time ago. The nature of the land around it did not turn out as originally intended, but the people who had permission to build the pub put the foundations down and let the ground go derelict for a long period of time. When the local authority eventually got round to asking them to put in a completion notice, they said they would build the original 1960s pub along the lines of the original design, when there were not houses or other things around the plot. That was clearly disingenuous due to the effluxion of time. The discovery of great-crested newts on the site eventually persuaded the owner of the land not to go ahead with that plan, but that is another story. 
 The matter in hand is whether there are more complex issues relating to the misleading of a planning authority than the case outlined by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight. He may consider that his proposals cover the broader issues, which I suggest cause planning authorities some difficulties in the way that I have described.

Matthew Green: Again, the hon. Member for Isle of Wight has highlighted a problem. The new clauses are not the way to deal with the problem, partly because new clause 22 does not set out any procedure by which someone might set out to seek revocation of planning permission.
 I want to add yet another scenario in which misleading information might play a part in planning applications. In rural areas such as my own constituency, people often have to seek retrospective planning approval for activities that they claim to have carried out on a site for years—for example, the storage of heavy goods vehicles. If they can show evidence that they have been doing that for 10 years, they can obtain planning permission for it. Such situations come up more regularly than one might imagine. Those activities, which take place in farm yards but are something other than agricultural activities, are, in many cases, entirely genuine. In order to prove the case, statements are sought from other local residents, friends and so on, who say, ''We've seen Mr. Smith park his lorry there for the past 15 years.'' In effect, planning permission is granted on the back of statements. 
 It is not that I want to stop that approach. In many cases, those people have genuine rights to planning permission. However, I understand that in a minority of cases people write deliberately misleading statements on behalf of applicants. It is very difficult to prove in the long run, but we can surmise that there must be at least a few such cases. Nevertheless, planning permission may have been granted. If someone proves at a later date that the statements were entirely wrong, nothing can be done to revoke the permission. I can envisage other situations in which that may happen. I would like to see included in the Bill something to prevent people from making misleading statements that are then used in planning applications. I believe that it is not even against the law to write a statement saying, ''Mr. Smith has parked five lorries there for the past 20 years,'' and use 
 it to gain planning permission. The person would be committing no offence, as far as I can tell, even though the statement may result in serious financial gain for someone else. 
 I urge the Minister to consider the issue. I do not believe that it arises that often, but it clearly does arise. We have now heard of three different cases in which misleading information might be provided for planning applications.

Sydney Chapman: I have served on many Committees, but never have I served on one in which an hon. Friend—in this case, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight—has introduced a quartet of issues that resonate with the public to such a great extent. I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising the four issues that we have discussed: high hedges, despoiling the landscape, road signs and furniture, and deliberately misleading drawings or failure to develop in the way for which permission has been given. The last is a very real issue that causes a great deal of anger among people who suffer as a result.
 My hon. Friend was right to say that not all architects are members of RIBA. If they are, they can call themselves chartered architects. However, they may belong to other organisations. Indeed, one can be a registered architect without paying a subscription to, and joining, RIBA. I take this opportunity to say that I forgot to declare two more inverted interests. I am an honorary fellow of the Institute of Architects and Surveyors and an honorary fellow and past president of the Faculty of Building. 
 The hon. Member for Ludlow is on to a good point. I believe that I am right in saying that, generally, in town planning law, one can establish existing use after four years. Anyway, the hon. Gentleman made his point very well. 
 I wish to ask my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight one question. It touches on the root of the difficulty of enacting his new clause. What is a material inaccuracy? He gave us an example of a building 9 ft higher than it should have been. Without doubt, that is a material inaccuracy, but in other cases, there will often be a problem deciding what is one. In different situations, the amounts will be relative or the measurements different. 
 I want to remind the Committee of what I believe to be the four most frequent causes of anger, as I have discovered in my constituency—which I have now had the privilege of representing for a 25th year. The first is what I call the parapet, where contrary to what the plans suggest the eaves or ridge of a building are 15 in higher than indicated. That can cut out the right to light. We talked about the importance of that earlier. The second, which is probably the most frequent because the most difficult to detect, is where the ground levels shown on the plans are inaccurate. I ask the Minister to consider whether it would be good if ground levels, when given on a plan, had to be related to a fixed point on a neighbouring building. That would ensure the greater likelihood of accuracy and provide a focus point if the original plans were not carried out during the development. One could then go back and say that the builder had not built according 
 to the plans. Quite often, plans are indistinct rather than exact. I am sorry if that point is rather technical, but it is important. 
 The third cause of anger that I have found relates to inaccuracy in the building that has been proposed and is being built, where the wrong height is given in relation to the next building. Again, that returns to my previous point. It might be thought that the eaves would be no higher than those of the next-door building, but then the building turns out to be a foot or so higher. The final cause of anger is where the drawings show that the proposed building is a certain distance from the boundary or curtilage of the property when it is in fact much nearer. The next-door neighbour thinks that because their gable is 4 ft from the boundary wall, the other building will be 4 ft from the other side but it turns out that the builders propose to put it 2 ft 6 in away. I am sorry not to talk in metric terms. Those are the real problems. 
 Although I have now retired as a member of the Royal Institute of British Architects, I should like to assure my hon. Friend that whenever someone writes to that prestigious institute complaining about the architect who has drawn up the papers, if it is an architect—it does not have to be, architects have no monopoly—RIBA takes the complaint very seriously indeed.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I have heard what other Members have had to say, which is always a useful starting point. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight, who has raised in his quartet of new clauses, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet said, yet another issue of real relevance to the planning system today. It will become increasingly relevant and important as the increasing sophistication of the use of computer-aided designs makes it possible to produce plans and models that can have misleading interpretations.
 My hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, with his considerable experience, has raised some interesting points. In the technical jargon, there should be a datum point on every single plan to avoid the problem with levels. If we had a datum point that linked the proposed development to an existing point, whether it were a trig point or some other level or immovable point on another building or road, everyone would be able to see precisely where the new building was being built. 
 In practice, misleading plans are presented to the local planning authority, which is usually swamped with applications. If an experienced officer had enough time, he would probably spot almost all the misleading points and ask for further information, but officers are under such pressure that they cannot ask for that. There is a problem that needs to be dealt with; the question is how. 
 I refer my hon. Friend and the Minister to section 97 of the principal Act—the Town and Country Planning Act 1990—which deals specifically with the power to revoke or modify planning permissions.

Yvette Cooper: Where?

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Section 97 of the 1990 Act, which the Minister has in front of her.
 The problem with section 97 is that it deals with developments that have not started. My hon. Friend's scenario involves a development that is more than part complete when it has become plainly obvious that there has been a misleading statement on the plan because the building is too high, for example. At that point, it is often difficult to do anything about it, particularly if the planning application was based on the evidence presented and nobody has made a mistake. 
 A simple amendment to section 97 might state that, if there were misleading information, the local planning authority would have the power to revoke such an application. Sections 98, 99 and 100 would provide the Secretary of State and the planning authorities with all the appeal powers. That seems to be the ideal way to deal with the problem. I hope that the Minister will seriously examine it and state whether the Government would be sympathetic in their consideration of an appropriate amendment on Report.

Yvette Cooper: New clause 22 would allow a local planning authority to revoke a planning permission where there is evidence to suggest either that the information provided in support of the application was materially inaccurate or that the applicant had deliberately sought to mislead.
 New clause 34 provides that no compensation under section 107 of the principal Act would be payable where the application was revoked or modified and it could be demonstrated that the information provided in support of the application was materially inaccurate. 
 There is a series of technical problems with the two new clauses and how they interrelate. I will not address that, as I recognise that the aim of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight is not to produce a technically perfect proposal, but to raise the issues. I want to deal not with the impact of the new clauses, but, instead, with the points that he makes, which are interesting. 
 Section 97 of the 1990 Act provides the local planning authority with the power to revoke a planning permission when it considers it expedient to do so. If a local planning authority found that there had been a material inaccuracy or an attempt to mislead in the planning application and it considered it expedient to do so, it could revoke on that account. It already has the powers to revoke the planning permission. There is, however, the attached issue of compensation.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Before the Minister goes on to compensation, as I stated in my opening remarks it is not the only issue in section 97. Section 97(3), which is material and worthy of consideration, states:
''The power conferred by that section may be exercised—
(a) where the permission relates to the carrying out of building or other operations, at any time before those operations have been completed;
(b) where the permission relates to a change of the use of any land, at any time before the change has taken place.''
 The provision is intended to be used to revoke planning permission before any material development has started. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight has indicated, often in cases that involve materially misleading local planning authorities the development has been materially started or completed. Section 97 is probably the correct vehicle to deal with the problem, but it would probably need a new subsection.

Yvette Cooper: This matter raises broader issues—my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) also raised such matters—involving what happens when development is not completed or things take place later. I am not sure that there is an obvious amendment to section 97 that would deal with the matter simply. I am happy to consider the point that the hon. Gentleman has raised, but I suspect that it may raise broader issues.
 The power in section 97 allows planning permission to be revoked, but it also involves compensation. If gaining planning permission involved a series of deceptions, it would be possible for a local planning authority to apply to the court to quash its decision to grant permission on the ground of deception. That may be an alternative avenue. 
 The question of alternative routes and the consequences for compensation is interesting. I am happy to consider whether there should be circumstances in which compensation should not be paid because of wilful deception, although we should recognise that that would be fraught with all kinds of other complexities. Members have raised potential difficulties with deciding when there has been wilful deception and when somebody has simply made an honest mistake.

Matthew Green: Some people are the equivalent of witnesses when planning permission is sought. The inspectorate relies on statements about use over time. I have read inspectors' decisions. They hang on the word of old Mr. Jones who said, ''Yes, that's been going on there for ages.'' In a court, if such a person gave information that was deliberately misleading or if they lied, whether they gave evidence verbally or submitted it, they could be held in contempt of court. That is not the case with planning. There is no similar comeback and nothing forewarns people that they need to make an accurate statement. Could something be done in that area?

Yvette Cooper: That is another interesting question. The material that needs to be submitted may involve certificates and to put false information on a certificate is an offence. Under the planning system, it is also open to inspectors to take evidence on oath. So, there are ways that such provision can be made, but I recognise that the point is interesting. I will consider the matters that Members have raised.
 I ask the hon. Member for Isle of Wight to withdraw the new clause, although he has raised interesting issues. There is already a power to revoke planning permission. I am happy to consider compensation and deception further, although there 
 is also a court route in some cases. I will also consider the concerns relating to retrospective matters, which were raised by the hon. Member for Cotswold.

Andrew Turner: I thank the Minister for her response. I was intrigued by the quartet that my hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet listed—not the quartet of proposals, but that of problems—because two of them are covered in the case that I quoted. Another, the ground levels on the plan, was relevant to the development of both Inglewood, an old people's home in Totland in my constituency, and Carisbrooke Park, a huge housing development undertaken by Persimmon Homes, which seems to be incapable of providing an accurate plan of what it intends to do.
 Every time that company gets something wrong, it applies for a modification. It has put in a series of amendments, making it impossible for local people to tell what is going on. Again the Minister nods; I am glad of that understanding. While I am about it, I understand that no one is allowed to take copies of the plan that has been submitted to the planning authority to check it on the ground because, the planning authority tells me, the applicant has the copyright of the plan so the authority cannot make copies for objectors to take away. Thank you, Mr. Hurst, for allowing me to make that aside.

Sydney Chapman: My hon. Friend makes a valid and important point. I put it to him that if that is the case—and it is, as the copyright belongs to the applicant—there is all the more reason for the local planning authority to take action and to take measurements on the site to establish what has been developed.

Andrew Turner: Indeed. I thank my hon. Friend for that. In the case of the development in Yarmouth, the planning authority found out that the height of the building was intended, and was not merely a mistake, only because it was eventually able to secure a copy of the plans by illicit means from the people who made the timber frame for it. There are serious questions to be addressed about wilful misleading and negligent misleading.
 I am glad that the Minister is prepared to consider the issues of compensation, deception and section 97, which have been referred to. I hope that she will do all in her power to ensure that it is not necessary for people to go to court over such matters at an early stage. I am sure that she will agree that it is far better if there is an administrative remedy. With that, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 26 - Pre-application consultation

'(1) Before an application can be made for planning permission and— 
 (a) the planning application falls within the definition of ''major applications'', as defined by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for that purpose; 
 (b) the planning application will be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment; 
 (c) the planning application falls within other categories as set out by the Secretary of State in regulations, the applicant must consult on the proposed application. 
 (2) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provisions for the extent and methods of consultation to be followed by the applicant. 
 (3) Any costs of carrying out the application will be met by the applicant'.—[Matthew Green.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Matthew Green: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 The new clause might, at first, appear not to achieve what I am about to say that I hope to achieve—namely, to speed up the planning system. It might seem so because it appears to add another phase to the planning system for large applications, those requiring environmental impact assessments or any other categories that the Secretary of State would like to add. 
 I believe that the new clause would speed up the planning system because what slows it down more than anything else is the rejection of applications and the consequent appeals and public inquiries. Nothing is better guaranteed to ensure that a development will grind to a halt than its hitting that process. I understand that in many large-scale developments astute developers ensure that they undertake considerable pre-application consultation—not with the planners only, but with nearby residents and more widely—so that many objections that might be raised can be dealt with before they even submit a plan. 
 There is therefore a greater likelihood that the planning committee will accept the plan and, as the number of objections has been reduced, the planning committee is far more likely to be minded to accept the application and the officers' advice for it. The applicants in such cases are less likely to find themselves in a position in which they have to appeal to the Secretary of State. 
 The proposal would also help by reducing both the number of objectors and, perhaps if the development is not in the local plan, the possible grounds of appeal to the Secretary of State, which might give him the reasons for saying that he does not want it called in. It could also reduce the number of chances for a third party to seek judicial review. Although that is not as common, it can still be a problem. 
 This is not a complex new clause, although it is probably technically imperfect. I wrote it myself without any advice, so I can almost guarantee that. I have never written a new clause without advice. I hope that the Minister will tell the Committee whether the Government are considering the provision as a means of speeding up the process and whether that is a suitable route to go down. I would be only too happy to co-operate with staff at a later stage in the Bill's progress if the new clause is not correctly drafted. 
 I believe that no study has been done on speeding up the planning process, so I speak largely from anecdotal evidence. I freely admit that. The problem is happening more and more and I believe that it would be in the interests of everyone, particularly the developers, if the new clause were agreed.

Sydney Chapman: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Ludlow. I want instinctively to be helpful and sympathetic to his point of view. I would like to put a proposition to him, and if I have got the wrong idea I invite him to disabuse me of it. First, I do not know exactly what is his definition of a major application.

Matthew Green: It is the Government's definition.

Sydney Chapman: Where there is a significant application—if I may use that term—rather than a major application, the Secretary of State would, perhaps, although not as a matter of course, be likely to call it in so that he could determine it or have a public inquiry as necessary, rather than let it go through the normal, conventional process. I accept that an application can go through that process and the Secretary of State can call it in at any time. However, what the hon. Gentleman wants is brought about in practice by the Secretary of State's ability to call in the application. The hon. Gentleman nods in assent. He will be able to put me right.
 Secondly—I accept that this point is germane only to the Greater London area—under the Act of Parliament that set up the office of Mayor of London, the Greater London Authority and the Greater London Assembly, certain significant applications have to be referred to the Mayor, although there are smaller applications relating to housing estates or the green belt. The Mayor has the power to authorise the local planning authority not to accept or prove the application—to say that the local planning authority should reject it. I have always thought that unnecessary, because if that course prevailed on an application and the Mayor required the local planning authority to reject it, the applicant would still have the right to go to the Secretary of State. That duplicates the planning system. We are here to speed it up within the bounds of fairness. 
 I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from and where he wants to get to, but is his new clause absolutely necessary? I would have thought that the existing town and country planning laws and regulations cover the matter by allowing the Secretary of State to call in an application.

Matthew Green: If I may, I shall clarify my comments. Development control and planning committees are swayed by the scale and number of objections. When the Secretary of State decides to call in an application, that does not affect his decision but may carry some weight. Anecdotal evidence is that when extensive pre-consultation takes place, the scale and number of objections when the application is made are dramatically reduced because many of the difficulties and misunderstandings have been ironed out and in some cases the developer is able to make amendments to the application which satisfy many of the objections.

Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I understand his position better than I did when I intervened. I have made my point and he has made his eloquently. I shall listen to what the Minister has to say.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: In my experience, larger applications almost always have an environmental impact assessment. In fact, any planning officer worth his salt would be well advised to require such an assessment and they almost always do as a matter of course. If they are to make a recommendation to their planning committee, they must have something on which to justify that recommendation and an environmental impact assessment makes that easier. That is particularly so because larger applications are likely to be more controversial and to be decided by a committee rather than under delegated powers to planning officers.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman may misunderstand my new clause, or perhaps I have not drafted it correctly. The environmental impact assessment requirement is just another way of defining the types of scheme that ought to come within the new clause: those that might require an environmental impact assessment are defined as major or come under any other definition of the Secretary of State. Those are the schemes that should be required to have a pre-consultation phase. I am not saying that they require an environmental impact assessment. It is the other way round. Those that require an environmental impact assessment should have a pre-consultation phase.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for intervening and he has clarified the matter a little.
 One of the plus points about the Bill is the introduction of pre-application discussions. Planning practitioners to whom I have spoken wholly welcome that. They are a little worried about the delay and the cost, but in terms of getting the planning system to work, a pre-application discussion is thoroughly good. Again, any developer of larger schemes, which are likely to be controversial, would be foolish just to bang in an application without any pre-application discussion. When I was practising in planning matters, even with smaller applications I would almost always ring up the planning officer and say, ''What do you think?'' and would get an instant reaction.

Matthew Green: I want to make it clear that I am suggesting discussions not with the planners, which is being introduced in other ways, but with the immediate neighbours and the wider public. With larger schemes, hundreds and sometimes thousands of objections can be significantly reduced. The new clause would introduce consultation with the wider public.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I think that the hon. Gentleman is talking not about an environmental impact assessment, but about a statement of community involvement, which is different. The statement of environmental impact—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman may put his head in his hands, but that is how the new clause is drafted. The environmental impact assessment is about the effect that a large-scale development will have on the environment of an area. I am looking at new clause 26, which I will read out clearly so that the Committee is aware of what the hon. Gentleman has actually written:
''Before an application can be made for planning permission and—
(a) the planning application falls within the definition of 'major applications', as defined by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for that purpose;
(b) the planning application will be accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment''
 That seems to me pretty clear, and I am trying to explain to the hon. Gentleman exactly what an environmental impact assessment is.

Matthew Green: I know what it is.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Okay, I will explain to the Committee what an environmental impact assessment does. Then perhaps by debate we can get the new clause where we want it.
 An environmental impact assessment, particularly of a larger development, is an assessment of that development's environmental effect on the whole area around it. Take, for example, a supermarket being built on a greenfield site. It is easy to see that such a supermarket would have an effect as far as land use is concerned and on the environment of the town in which it is located. I know what the hon. Gentleman is about to say.

Matthew Green: As I said earlier, I am no expert in drafting clauses. Thanks to the hon. Gentleman's—one might say—correct reading of my new clause, I realise that it is missing the word ''or'' at the end of paragraphs (a) and (b). I apologise for not writing it correctly. I think that the Minister knows where I am coming from and I am sorry that by missing out two words I have led the hon. Member for Cotswold down the wrong route.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I shall illustrate the hon. Gentleman's problem with a story from the very first time that I came into this House. I was paired—an unusual event as not everybody was paired in those days because there were not enough Labour MPs to go round. I offered to vote for one of my colleagues and I said, ''You owe me a bottle of whisky.'' ''I do,'' he said, and the next day he produced a miniature bottle of whisky. ''Let that be a lesson to you,'' he said. ''Words in this place mean everything. Words are what they mean. You should have said a full-size bottle of whisky.''
 Words are everything and one has to interpret what is on the Amendment Paper. I accept what the hon. Gentleman says, but he is requiring an environmental impact assessment as well as a statement of community involvement.

Matthew Green: I am not.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Well, that is how I read it. What the hon. Gentleman wants may well be reasonable, but it amounts to a statement of community involvement. We have to be careful how many environmental impact assessments and statements of community involvement we have because the test of the Bill will be whether it speeds up the planning process. Of course in the larger, controversial applications we have to take people with us and it is paramount that the planning system be completely open and democratic. That delicate balance between it being open and democratic, and consulting on everything has to be
 made. I feel that under the new clause that delicate balance is perhaps unnecessarily in favour of consultations about consultations.

Keith Hill: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Ludlow for tabling the amendment. I understand the intention behind the amendment and I support it. Indeed, in many ways, that intention goes to the heart of a key element of our package of reforms. But I have to say—and there is always a but—the amendment is unnecessary. In explaining why, I hope to demonstrate how central to the Bill the Government's commitment is to greater public engagement at all stages of the planning process. That public engagement will create a faster and more seamless and efficient planning process.
 Our reforms are intended to lead to a planning system that promotes community involvement, with clear opportunities for people to make their views known and participate fully. We have been clear since the planning Green Paper that we want more effective pre-application consultation as part of that reform, and that is exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman is driving at in his amendment. 
 We want a planning system that is transparent, so that information is easily available and easy to understand; promotes clear opportunities for participation; is accessible and reaches out to the community, including groups that, in the past, have not engaged easily with planning; and has clear accountability for decisions through the democratic process. 
 Most people become engaged in the planning process only when applications likely to have a direct impact on their lives are made. However, the hon. Member for Ludlow is absolutely right—the best local authorities and good developers already involve communities in plan-making and significant planning proposals. On the evidence, that process is valued by those who participate and by people who have shown that they want to be involved in the issues. Members of the public are often unaware both of their rights and of how to best put their views to influence decisions. 
 Ensuring community involvement is a challenge, but it also offers the local community the opportunity to have an important say in what sort of place they want to live in. Under the new planning system, the wishes of local people included in the so-called local development framework—the folder of local development documents that will collectively deliver the spatial strategy for the local planning authority's area—should be, and are, reflected. The views of local people have always been an integral part of the planning process. The case for the community's voice to be heard is clear. Public involvement is valuable as a key element of an open and participatory democracy. Involvement improves the quality and efficiency of decision-making by using local knowledge and minimising unnecessary and costly conflict, to use the words that the hon. Member for Ludlow spoke in moving his amendment.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: The Minister alluded to a paradox to which I referred—the difficulty of finding
 the balance between community involvement and speeding up the planning system. On the face of it, the two are contrary to each other. I note that although there is to be community involvement in the local plan-making process under the Bill, there is none in the regional spatial strategy. I believe that an amendment has been tabled on that very point. Does the Minister believe that any community involvement other than that already provided for in the present planning system is needed in individual applications? Having included community involvement in the plan-making process, is there a need for additional community involvement at the individual application stage?

Keith Hill: First, I am not persuaded by the hon. Gentleman's premise about the contradictory nature of community involvement and smoother process. It is exactly the thrust of the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow—and, indeed, it is the Government's approach—that early engagement is likely to create a more seamless process.
 As for extra involvement in individual applications, it really depends on the scale of the application. For a major application, one would, in any circumstances, expect considerable community involvement as the plans for that site developed. [Interruption.] Let me just add to that observation, inspiration having winged its way as it ineffably does in Committee. The statement of community involvement refers primarily to local authority policy with regard to significant applications. Therefore, we are considering larger-scale applications, and the Government's desire through our planning reform package is to encourage greater public engagement in those more significant applications. As the hon. Gentleman knows there is already ample opportunity for the public to engage in individual applications. 
 If I may indulge in a spot of anecdotalism—to cite one of the neologisms of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight—my first interface, as we say these days, with my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Mandelson) was when I appeared before the town planning sub-committee in the London borough of Lambeth to object to the construction of an old people's home behind my home. Lo and behold, the chair of that particular august body, the town planning sub-committee, was none other than Councillor Mandelson who would later become the right hon. Member for Hartlepool. I know from direct experience that opportunities for public engagement and individual applications are there and can be very well used.

Matthew Green: If I follow the thrust of the Minister's arguments he is saying that the new clause is unnecessary because the statement of community involvement produced by the council will set out that that sort of thing should happen in relation to large-scale schemes anyway. If that is what the Minister is saying it might have been helpful if he had published the draft guidance—I hope that he has not done so already—relating to the statement of community
 involvement, which would have meant that I would have avoided reaching this point.
 If the draft guidance shows that in the case of such schemes a council would be expected to write policies that would achieve what I have set out to do into its statement of community involvement, my efforts have all been in vain. Perhaps it has already been published and it has passed me by somewhere in the ether.

Keith Hill: No. The hon. Gentleman makes a perfectly fair point. As the Committee will be aware, we have endeavoured to let it have as much as possible of our proposals for guidance in draft form. We have not been able to supply that to the Committee, but it is our intention to bring it out in the very near future, and Committee members will be the first to receive those drafts. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's intervention is watch this space—the details will be set out in the guidance in due course.

Mark Francois: I thank the Minister for giving way. The moment may have passed, but I am provoked beyond all human endurance to ask out of curiosity who won in the matter of Mandelson versus Hill.

Keith Hill: Not for the first, or last, time it was my right hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I wonder what that did for the right hon. Gentleman's career.
 The statement of community involvement is enshrined in the local plan process in clause 17 of the Bill, but I cannot see a similar enshrining in the Bill of a statement of community involvement in the regional planning process. Considering that it is far more strategic than the local plan process, I ask the Minister why that inconsistency exists.

Keith Hill: I do not think that it is an inconsistency. It is a matter of the significance of developments in relation to the local community. It is our absolute conviction that local people have a right to play a part in big decisions about their immediate localities and communities. Remember that the regional spatial strategy is broader, and more strategic in character by definition, and because it is more strategic it will have less direct immediate impact on localities and individual communities. Nevertheless—[Interruption.] No, it is okay, I actually know the answer—[Laughter.] The Committee will be delighted to discover that the note supplements rather than contradicts the information that I was in the process of conveying.
 The hon. Gentleman will remember from his earlier involvement in discussions about the regional spatial strategy that it is intended that key agencies will be heavily involved in its development, under the auspices of the regional planning body. However, we do not envisage such direct linkage, for all the reasons that I have given. 
 To satisfy the Committee's possible curiosity, I ought to add that the message that has been conveyed to me says that consultation at regional level is already in draft regulations and guidance that have just been published, so the hon. Gentleman can examine in some detail exactly what we intend to suggest in relation to consultation by the regional planning bodies.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: I am grateful to the Minister for that elucidation and am glad that agencies are expected to be involved in drawing up the RSS. However, if the volume of correspondence that I get from some of my lucid constituents is anything to go by, I am certain that some people in the Cotswolds will wish to make representations on the RSS. I hope that that will be fully provided for in the regulations.

Keith Hill: I am certain that those who wish to make representations on the RSS will have ample opportunity to do so. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman and his constituents in the Cotswolds.
 I was trying to describe the advantages of greater involvement by local people in the planning process, which is central to our purpose and, I rather think, the intentions of the hon. Member for Ludlow. Such involvement will serve the purpose of educating the participants not only about the needs of their own communities in a wider sense, but about those of the business sector. It will also serve to engage people in local government, which is an extremely valuable aspect of the process as well. Involvement is also likely to assist in promoting social cohesion by encouraging links within communities and giving local residents a stake in decision making. 
 Again, to allude to an observation that the hon. Gentleman made, we want to encourage developers to work with communities on proposals for developments before they submit their applications for planning permission. That benefits both developers and local communities, since any areas of potential conflict can be dealt with before the proposals are finalised. Where an application for a proposed development has been discussed with the community in advance, we expect it to have a much easier passage during the formal planning process. 
 The Bill contains a number of proposals that should help to take that objective forward. For example, the planning checklist, which is proposed in the planning Green Paper, provides a mechanism that will enable developers to focus on pre-application consultation. The planning checklist was widely welcomed, and clause 41 will enable local planning authorities to issue standard checklist forms. 
 There are statutory requirements for publicity on planning applications. Arrangements for publicising applications for planning permission, listed building consent, and conservation area consent are not consistent, however. In the July 2002 policy paper, we said that we would standardise application and publicity under the different consent regimes. We therefore intend to consult later this year on possible changes in publicity requirements to bring the three regimes into line, and to consider whether any simplification is appropriate. Clearer publicity arrangements will obviously facilitate more effective involvement. 
 The hon. Member for Chipping Barnet was absolutely right in his remarks about major applications. Clause 43 deals with major infrastructure projects. As the hon. Member for Cotswold pointed out, the amendment also refers to major applications. The new major infrastructure 
 project inquiry rules will continue the Government's policy aim of encouraging community involvement in the planning process. The intention is to encourage most involvements as soon as projects have been called in, to allow pre-inquiry work to concentrate on identifying the relevant issues and clarifying which of them might be resolved before inquiry. 
 We want communities to engage with the planning process from the beginning. In any large-scale development, it is in the interests of both developer and community to engage with each other at an early stage, including through local meetings. Any guidance that the Government produce on major infrastructure projects will highlight the value of such communications.

Matthew Green: The Minister mentioned that clause 41 will create the checklist, as he called it. In my quick reading of that clause, the only thing that I can see is where subsection (1) says:
''Provision referred to . . . includes provision as to—
(a) the form and manner in which the application must be made'',
 which is the substitute for section 62(2)(a) of the 1990 Act. That appears to be what the Minister is referring to, but unless I am wrong that does not enable a local authority to say that pre-application consultation is required. Just before the Minister mentions regulations, I cannot see anything in that subsection, which introduces new section 62, about regulation, although I can see that just after that there is a reference to tree preservation orders and regulations controlling the display of advertisements.

Keith Hill: It is simply impossible to write everything into the Bill as one intends. However, I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the provisions in clause 41 create the framework to permit the introduction of the regulation that will bring in the use of the checklists. Of course, my words in this Committee in my ex cathedra capacity will confirm the Government's intention that that should be the case.
 I draw the Committee's attention to the fact that the Bill also includes provision for local planning authorities to introduce local development orders. Those are orders made by the local planning authority that expand on the permitted development rights set nationally, which we debated in an earlier sitting. They give permitted development rights to developers who bring forward proposals in line with a policy in a development plan document. 
 A local planning authority will be required to produce a short note—a ''statement of reasons''—justifying the making of a local development order. It will then be required to comply with the same publicity and consultation requirements that are being established for development plan documents. The authority will have to consult any body that, in its opinion, would have been a statutory consultee for the planning application for the proposed development being permitted by the local development order. The authority will not be able to adopt a local development order until the specified deadline for comments has passed, and will have to take into account any representations received. I add that to the debate as 
 a further assurance to the Committee of the Government's commitment to make the process as open, as transparent, as accessible and as involving a process as possible. 
 With regard to our commitment to greater community involvement, we think it right that local people should have a say in big decisions about their local communities. We expect a greater understanding and acceptance of the case for development, where it is desirable, to arise from that process. I think that that is the point behind the proposals of the hon. Member for Ludlow. The measures that we are introducing and the more effective community involvement that they are intended to produce serve to make the hon. Gentleman's proposals unnecessary, and I implore the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the new clause.

Matthew Green: I think that the Minister is imploring me to withdraw the new clause on the grounds that regulations about statements of community involvement and draft regulations about how councils will make development orders will achieve everything that I seek to achieve through new clause 26. I return to my earlier point: if those draft regulations had been in place beforehand, I might not be speaking now. I hope that the regulations come out rather promptly, perhaps before Report, so that if they fail at the pre-consultation stage, we shall have the time and opportunity to return to the issue—although in view of the Minister's words, I am sure that they will not fail. For the moment, given the Minister's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New clause 27 - Qualified third party right of appeal

'(1) After section 78, subsection (2), of the principal Act there is inserted— 
 '(2A) Where a local planning authority approves an application for planning permission and— 
 (a) the planning application does not accord with the provisions of the development plan in force in the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated; or 
 (b) the planning application is one in which the local authority has an interest as defined in section 316; 
 (c) the planning application falls within the definition of ''major applications'', as defined by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for that purpose; 
 (d) the planning application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment; 
 (e) the planning officer has recommended refusal of planning permission, certain persons as specified in subsection (2B) below may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State. 
 (2B) Persons who may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State against the approval of planning permission in the circumstances specified in subsection (2A) above are— 
 (a) any persons who have lodged a formal objection to the planning application in writing to the planning authority for the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated; 
 (b) other persons at the discretion of a person appointed by the Secretary of State for that purpose.''. 
 (2) Section 79 of the principal Act is amended as follows— 
 In subsection (2), leave out ''either'' and after ''planning authority'' insert ''or the applicant (where different from the appellant).'' 
 In subsection (6), after ''the determination'' insert ''(except for appeals as defined in section 78(2A) and where the appellant is as defined in section 78(2B).''.'—[Matthew Green.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Matthew Green: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Alan Hurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 47—Appeals (non-compliance with development plan)—
'1. After section 78, subsection (2), of the principal Act there is inserted—(2A) Where a local planning authority approves an application for planning permission and— 
 (a) the planning application does not accord with the provisions of the development plan in force in the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated; or 
 (b) the planning application is one in which the local authority has an interest as defined in section 316; 
 the persons who may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State against the approval of planning permission in the circumstances specified above are— 
 (a) any persons who have lodged a formal objection to the planning application in writing to the planning authority for the area in which the land to which the application relates is situated; 
 (b) other persons at the discretion of a person appointed by the Secretary of State for that purpose.'' 
 2. Section 79 of the principal Act is amended as follows— 
 ''In subsection (2), leave out (''either'') and after ''planning authority'' insert ''or the applicant (where different from the appellant).'' 
 In subsection (6), after ''the determination'' insert ''(except for appeals as defined in section 78(2A) and where the appellant is as defined in section 78(2B)''.'.

Matthew Green: New clause 27 offers a qualified third-party right of appeal. The idea of third party rights of appeal has been batted around the various parties and organisations concerned with planning for several years now. There is a perceived unfairness in the current procedures for participation in planning. Prospective developers may appeal against the refusal of their planning application, whereas third parties cannot appeal against approval. Their only recourse for action is a judicial review. Extensive independent research has been carried out, initially supported by eight organisations: the Campaign to Protect Rural England, to which I am grateful for the wording of this new clause, the Royal Society for the Protection of Birds, WWF UK, the Civic Trust, Friends of the Earth, the Town and Country Planning Association, the Environmental Law Foundation and ROOM, the national council for housing and planning. They have subsequently been joined by the Ancient Monuments Society, the National Trust, the Ramblers Association and Transport 2000. That forms a heavy group of bodies.
 The report published in January 2002 recommended that there should be an opportunity for those disadvantaged and aggrieved by planning approvals to seek redress in certain restricted circumstances. I certainly would not support a wide-ranging third-party right of appeal, but since the right 
 is limited to a certain set of circumstances and would help the planning system, I am happy to support it. The third parties that would be in the position to claim the right of appeal would be people directly affected by the development, nearby local authorities when the development is on the border of two local authorities, interest groups, statutory agencies and Government Departments. Not just the ODPM but other Departments could appeal against applications.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that? I was half concentrating on something else and may have missed what he said. Did he say that one category of people with a right of third-party appeal would be those living in a neighbouring authority but near the existing application?

Matthew Green: No, I said those in neighbouring local authorities. If people were directly affected by a development, they could appeal wherever they lived, and they might be on the boundary. The new clause would also give neighbouring local authorities the power to appeal. There have been some problems where one local authority would not have approved an application, but it happened to be right on a boundary and the other planning authority chose to approve it. There is no right of appeal in those situations.
 It is hoped that such a system does not mean that the planning system will grind to a halt, but that standards in planning authorities will rise because they will become accountable both for their approvals and refusals. At the moment, they are accountable for refusals but not approvals. New clause 27 sets out five categories in which a third-party right of appeal would apply; it would not apply to all approvals. It would apply where there is an approval despite a departure from the approved plan; I realise that such a case would be sent to the inspector, but we are providing another route. 
 That right would also apply to applications in which local authorities have an interest, to major applications, which we have referred to earlier, to applications that require an environmental impact assessment and to applications recommended for refusal by officers—that is, where refusal is recommended, the planning committee subsequently approves, and perhaps the Secretary of State is not minded to call the application in because it is relatively minor. The new clause would give the right of appeal in those circumstances.

Clive Betts: When I look at the new clause, especially paragraph (e), it strikes me that it is rather unusual to bring up the issue of an officer recommending a refusal. Although, during the planning process, relatively minor matters are often delegated to officers, that aspect of the new clause would delegate to officers the right to activate a right of appeal for certain people on major applications. That would be a significant departure in the planning process, would it not?

Matthew Green: I understand where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, but let me turn his argument around. At the moment, there is a right of appeal by the applicant. One of the grounds on which someone would readily seek an appeal is if the officers
 have recommended approval but the committee had turned the application down. Having seen a few desperate attempts by committees to justify why they have gone against their officers' advice—they must come up with some reasons—I know that spurious reasons are often given. The right therefore exists in the opposite direction; it does not exist for those who object to a scheme, only for applicants.

Clive Betts: The hon. Gentleman is not quite right there. The right of appeal is not activated in the case that he has raised, where an officer recommends acceptance and the decision is made to refuse—although a recommendation might influence the success of the appeal, because the appellant can quote back the officer's recommendation. In the hon. Gentleman's example, the right of appeal is influenced by the officer's recommendation. There is a difference.

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. An applicant can appeal under any circumstances. The new clause would just add some qualifications, and reduce the number of possible appeals from objectors. Applicants can appeal even if they have no chance whatever of winning, but they are clearly more likely to appeal if officers have recommended acceptance, and are more likely to win, because the planning officers probably got the law broadly right in the first place.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Gentleman is in danger of opening a can of worms. There is already a feeling that officers should be the servants of the local authority, and not working in opposition to the desires either of members of the public or of the local authority. Although I accept, and regret, that what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) has just said is true—an appeal can be supported by an officer's recommendation to approve—would it not be entirely wrong to give the officer the power to seek to override the members, who are his employers?

Matthew Green: The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood what I am saying. The new clause may not be perfect—I do not pretend that it is—but its aim is to lay down a set of circumstances in which a third party, not the officer, can appeal against a decision to grant planning permission. Where an officer has said that an application should be refused but the planning committee approves it, and where it is unlikely that the Secretary of State will call in, perhaps because of the scale of the scheme as much as anything else, objectors will otherwise have no recourse, even if they have been pretty hard done by.
 I am not trying to set up a situation in which objectors can object to every approval granted by a planning committee, but to restrict the numbers to the worst abuses of the system. I, and those who tried to help me to draft the new clause, may not have got it right, but I am trying to lay down certain categories of situation in which people can object. This is not something that I have dreamed up. Others have been trying to get the third-party right of appeal right. Unless I have got it completely wrong, this group of amendments contains another new clause, tabled by the hon. Member for Cotswold, which seeks another route to including a qualified third-party right of appeal in the Bill. 
 My new clause is a stab at trying to come up with a third-party right of appeal. The Government are probably determined not to have any of these things in the Bill, but that is for them to justify. I hope that the Minister is encouraged to go away and come up with a system that might work, and allow objectors that right of appeal in some of the worst abuses of the planning system.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Third-party right of appeal is controversial. Some people believe that there should be a third-party right of appeal, especially as a developer has a right of appeal but other parties who are affected by the appeal do not. The hon. Member for Ludlow advanced that argument. Others say that there is adequate community involvement—the Minister talked about this at great length—and that people who want to object to a planning application have adequate opportunity to do so. People in that camp usually add that introducing a third-party right of appeal will considerably slow down the planning process. They use as evidence the very general third-party right of appeal that exists in the south of Ireland.
 The CPRE and others originally suggested the concept to me. They wrote a new clause, which is exactly the same as the one tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow. I told them that it was too wide. One category in particular was too wide, and has already been subject to some discussion in Committee. Paragraph (e) says that where 
''the planning officer has recommended refusal of planning permission, certain persons as specified in subsection (2B) below may by notice appeal to the Secretary of State.''
 The planning procedure should be as open as possible. It should be democratic. We have a democratic planning system in this country because we have planning committees. 
 I have much sympathy for what my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight said. Planning officers are employed by the local authority, and they are there to exercise their professional judgment and to make recommendations, but it is the planning committee, particularly on larger and more controversial applications, that should make the final decision. We would be handing over more powers, and planning officers might say, ''We don't like this sort of development, but we don't really know what to do with it. Let's go in the direction of a third-party right of appeal. It'll probably result in a public inquiry. That's the way to go.'' They would, in a sense, be shying away from having to make a decision on a controversial application. For those reasons I do not like the proposals in paragraph (e). 
 Local planning committees need to consult local people carefully. If people disagree with planning officers, that is thoroughly healthy, particularly if they are able to give good reasons should the case go to appeal. If, having heard the professional opinion of the planning officers, the committee overturns that advice, it usually has good democratic reasons for doing so. 
 Having said that, I do not want my remarks to be misinterpreted. We need to employ more planning officers and to give them greater esteem and status. There is no reason why a chief planning officer should not have the same status as a chief education officer or a chief social services officer. I do not in any way wish to denigrate the planning profession—after all, I am a member of that profession. However, it is healthy when local democracy works. For that reason, I do not go along with paragraph (e). 
 Paragraph (d) states: 
''the planning application is accompanied by an Environmental Impact Assessment''.
 That seems slightly contrary to the previous new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow, in which he argued for environmental impact assessments to become more universal. Paragraph (d) would mean that, wherever possible, the applicant would try to get away with submitting an application that did not include an environmental impact assessment so that he would not become subject to the provisions. In the case of most of the larger and more controversial applications, the planning authority is likely to demand an environmental impact assessment in any case, if it is doing its job properly. I do not go along with having a third-party right of appeal in the case of the category covered by paragraph (d). 
 Paragraph (c) states: 
''the planning application falls within the definition of 'major applications', as defined by a person appointed by the Secretary of State for that purpose''.
 Most really major, controversial applications will either be called in, or, if they are really big applications, they will come under the major projects heading—or whatever it is called. I am referring to major inquiries such as terminal 5. Such applications will not fall under this category. 
 That leaves us with the categories covered by paragraphs (a) and (b), which I have included in new clause 47. These are the two categories to which the third-party right of appeal should be limited. I apologise to the Committee and the Minister because I would have liked further to refine paragraph (a) as it appears in new clause 47. Where it states: 
''with the provisions of the development plan'',
 I would have liked to see—if I had more time—the words ''the local development scheme and local development documents which are adopted as defined in section 14 of this Act.'' Some local authorities do not have an adopted local plan. Clearly, there cannot be a third-party right of appeal involving an application being contrary to the plan if that plan has not been adopted and is not in force. I would also like the third-party right of appeal to apply to the new plans introduced by this Bill, rather than existing plans. So, I would have a modified paragraph (a). 
 Paragraph (b) states: 
''the planning application is one in which the local authority has an interest as defined in section 316''.
 Of all the categories, this is the most meritorious. There have been cases in my constituency where the 
 local authority has owned land and given itself permission to build a large number of houses. It has a pecuniary interest in getting planning permission for such land, but the project was not called in or subject to a public inquiry. They were very controversial cases: such matters were unsatisfactorily handled. I have great sympathy with my constituents who live next door to such developments. I would have liked them to have had a third-party right of appeal. 
 I am talking about a limited category of third-party right of appeal. I hope that it would be used only in controversial cases, because if we were to start to use it as a general rule, we would slow down the planning process. I have said to the Minister on several occasions that the acid test of whether the Bill is a success is whether it speeds up the present planning system. If it does not, Hill's Bill will have failed: if it does, I will buy him a drink.

Sydney Chapman: I want briefly to echo a few points made by the hon. Member for Ludlow and my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold.
 Third parties already have rights in certain planning applications—for example, when the Secretary of State calls in an application for determination and there is a planning inquiry. In general, they have the right to be heard in the most significant cases, and long may that continue. 
 I congratulate the hon. Member for Ludlow on introducing this new clause—as I congratulate myself and my hon. Friends on bringing new clause 47 to the attention of the Committee. The hon. Gentleman is at pains to say that he does not want third-party rights to be spread too widely. If they were more than very tightly drawn, they could bring the whole planning process to a grinding halt—in extreme cases, things would take years to be decided. 
 This is a time to be radical. The present planning system has been operating for well over 50 years: some people say that the Housing, Town Planning, etc. Act 1909 was the first planning legislation. We now have an occasion to reassure the minority of people who think that the planning system is skewed in favour of developers, the local planning authority, and so forth. We could seriously look at extending the rights of third parties. New clause 47 is the route down which we should go: that is why I put my name to it. If a planning application that breaches the adopted development plan of a local planning authority is approved, and a local authority within the local planning authority or the local planning authority wants to change the existing approved scheme, it is perfectly reasonable that the third parties should have rights to ask why and get the thing examined. 
 I feel my second point just as intensely as my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, and I applaud him for the way that he put it. If we are to remove the charges and innuendoes that there is bribery and corruption, where a local authority has a vested interest in getting development on a plot of land, third-party rights ought to be introduced to ensure that the whole situation is above board. 
 I applaud the hon. Member for Ludlow for new clause 27, although, on reflection, I am not so sure 
 about paragraphs (c), (d) and, particularly (e). That could lead to the chairman of the planning committee calling in the planning officer and saying, ''Look, you do realise that if you are seen to be advising us to go one way and we choose to go to the other, you are going to be the cause of a lot of expenditure.'' However, noble the sentiment, that might bring unfair pressure to bear on the planning officer or his staff. I warmly applaud new clause 47 and ask the Government to think sympathetically about it. It would bring them great credit if we were able in this narrow, but important, area to extent the rights of third-party interests.

Andrew Turner: There is absolutely no doubt that one of the greatest inequities in the planning system is the ability of local authorities to give themselves planning permission. The local authority on which I serve gave itself such permission on many occasions. Many county councils that are not normally planning authorities are wont to give themselves planning permission for the development of, for example, school playing fields. In many cases, county councils are accused of securing the closure of schools to give themselves permission for development. I have no doubt that qualification (b) in both new clauses is entirely justified as a reason for a third-party right of appeal.
 I take it that the ''or'' in the new clause tabled by the hon. Member for Ludlow applies just to the first two paragraphs and that (c), (d) and (e) are ''ands''—in other words, all three qualifications must be fulfilled, as well as either (a) or (b).

Matthew Green: Once again, I have probably missed out a few ''ors''. I tabled some corrections to spelling mistakes during the first Committee stage in January. Those were turned down. I would never expect an amendment or a new clause to be accepted by the Government in the form that it is written. If it were, I would be stunned.

Andrew Turner: If the hon. Gentleman is putting in more ''ors'', we are all rowing in the same direction. If there should be an ''or'' between (c) and (d) and between (d) and (e), that would make his new clause slightly more acceptable. I now understand the explanation that he gave for paragraph (e) earlier on. The planning officer does not trigger the third-party appeal—he is the hurdle in the way of that right of appeal.
 So many of the justifications put forward by the hon. Member for Ludlow resonate with real residents in real places. In saying that the word ''or'' should be included, the hon. Gentleman is telling me that that the new clause does not provide a means of preventing a right of appeal, although many developers will do their best to avoid putting in an environmental impact assessment, for example. It is, in fact, a means of permitting a right of appeal. I am beginning to get the message. I am glad to have that assurance. 
 I support the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Cotswold, and what he said about it not according with the development plan. That seems to be a matter of consensus among all hon. Members on the Opposition Benches and is an essential and 
 entirely justified requirement. I can give examples from my constituency, where the development of a wind farm is outside the development plan. There is no mention in that plan of a wind farm—certainly not for the site on which the local authority has approved the development of a wind farm. Perhaps I have should not tempt the Minister too far in this direction, because I believe that there is either a request for the 
 Minister to call in the case, or an ombudsman case against him for not calling it in. I feel that that entirely justifies a third-party right of appeal, and I am happy to see it in both the new clauses, and so I am pleased to support them. 
 Debate adjourned.—[Paul Clark.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at Six o'clock till Tuesday 21 October at ten minutes past Nine o'clock.